Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I will offer no explaination as to who I am, or what qualifications I have to make these claims, my argument should be solid enough to stand on its own two feet regardless of who is saying it. I believe that all points are solidly covered below from both sides of the coin.

Currently wars are evadable and pointless due to the fact you can legitimately avoid them through various mechanics such as alliance hopping, corporation hopping and sheilding yourself from wardecs by increasing the costs. This stems from the fact that highsec, has for a long time, become a place where people go and expect to be nigh-immune from harm from anyone. CONCORD should not be impossible to tank and/or evade without being banned. If you remember, it used to not be like that, until the zombies invaded Yulai and successfully tanked CONCORD, effectively blockading the main trade hub at the time.

The other problems are some of the absolutely massive undock rings of some stations due to their design. The Caldari stations can have a docking ring that extends out to 45+km from the undock point. This means that anyone within that absolutely massive bubble can dock at any time provided that they aren't agressing another person and haven't for one minute. This problem also exists with some Gallente stations such as the school stations such as the type in the Duripant system. This, coupled with CONCORD's immunity to being harmed in any way whatsoever makes it rediciously easy to evade legitimate wardecs from people that are angry with the target.

If the war system is to be overhauled, it needs to be done in concert with a larger highsec balance pass for the above reasons. Station games, as they are called, take any fun in fighting out of the picture. It should be kept in mind that a large number of wars in highsec occur BECAUSE people enjoy talking smack, and playing the market to make passive income while someone else camps the station outside, hoping that they get bored and just stfu and go away. This effectively makes wars in highsec pointless because actions lack consequence for people that overstep their boundries.

Any new war mechanic needs to be looked at from this perspective in that it should be a viable gameplay choice in highsec, or anywhere else and that current loopholes should be plugged/given counters for both sides. Goals should be established for both sides so that one or the other may truly claim victory and bring an end to the conflict once a set number of goals are achieved. Goals can/should always be dynamic so as to allow the aggressor to cause the victim harm be it in space or in their wallet. This can come in the form of blockades to somebodie's ecnomic empire, station/gate camps, ship losses, manufacturing processes taking damage, or whatever suits either side. The victim should be capable, in theory, of fighting back in multiple ways, including hiring mercenaries to remove blockades, escort transport ships to a market, or what-have-you.

Ideally, in the minds of many, CONCORD would not exist. If that were to happen, it would end HILARIOUSLY with the perma-blockading of any and all trade hubs and murdering of all miners anywhere. This is effectively a non-option at this point (even if i may agree with the idea that CONCORD is a **** mechanic to begin with) and fully removing CONCORD would hurt the game more than it would help it. At the same time, Highsec space, as I said above, is too secure. A balance can be struck to make it signifigantly less safe without making it effectively nullsec. Such a balance would likely improve the game, I would argue however that it would have to be a careful one.

Edit: I should add that current evasion mechanics such as simply creating new corporations exist at this time because of the relative ease with wich corporations are created and disbanded, they don't really matter. Likewise, some alliances exist for the explicit purpose of helping corporations evade wars. These can be solved by having wars follow corps through alliances and reformations. Decsheilds as they are called exist because of similar reasons.

What Shad0wsFury just said is pretty much an extension of my original post, but it should be kept in mind as food for thought. Well put, I didn't really care to go into that that deep, but there you go.

Agree with the general sentiment of it being too hard to hurt people, not only in high sec but any NPC space. IMO more assets should be placed in space and being subject for attacks. Like your personal ship-hangar should not be totally safe from attacks imo. The more privelages and abilities one have in Eve the more voulnerable you should be. But this should go the other way too, in order to wage war you should be required to hold some kind of asset that can be attacked by the decced party.

This should be coupled with a heavy increase to tax for players in NPC corporations and a restriction to what they can do in the game, for example disable Battleships, T2 and T3 ships.

That's not an argument. It IS PvP, just a one-time occasion.


Well the only ones that can easily do that are corp without a POS, so newb corps or pure mission runners.
Any big self-respecting corporation has one or more POSses - and so is vulnerable to wardecs. So your argument doens't really hold.

In the end, it just comes down to that you can still kill and harass people in highsec as much as you like, you´re just not willing to pay the price.

As you said: not going to happen.

CCP advertizes with "big infiltrator spy games" as a great asset and has been promoting "power of two" for a while as well.

...all of it true.

/signed in full



Also: Jump drives = crazy teleportation (lame mechanic) around entirety of eve. Still needs a massive nerf.

yup

I can. Do they always have to be succesful - and from whose perspective?

I'm not saying all your points are invalid (agreed, station games are utter silly) and I agree wardecs need a major overhaul. But I don't think I'd agree with all your assumptions and proposals.

The problem with this is that any wardec system that allows for doging wars is no better than the current one. Dodging wars as it stands is done primarily because of the total dickwad equation and that people don't like to be held accountable for their **** attitudes.

There is a simplier way to avoid highsec problems.

You want to know more?

{Yes} {No}

Be prepared, this sage advice will blow your mind away.

GTFO of highsec.

/me watches in the amazement of the Whoa!, Dude!, Sweet! like from Keanu Reeves Bill/Ted Moments and Ashton Kutcher / Seann William Scott Dude, where's my car.

Questions is, why are you surrounded in the security of highsec trying to wage a one sided war of aggression? Why do you want a one sided victory against a mission fitted ship, masturbetion is just as one sided and less hassle then trying to get girl into your bed. Could it be...that you like how secure it is and a sense of victory while avoiding all the risk. Ah, that further blows your mind away. Seems you like convience and less hassle as the guy you set out to destroy, when in fact you can just walk away from it. You don't have to fight battles of those NPC police retaliating, neutrol repping, station docking games that you so despise.

What no one ever stops to think about is, that its just that damn easy to destroy things in EVE unlike other MMO that can really ruins someone's day for a video game and there isn't enough justifiable reward to bother with that "grindy feel" to replace assets while under constant threat unless destroying unless NPC frigs were payed out 5 million in bounties in .8 space scalable up to 50m in .4 space (and the BS rewards, would pay for 3 plex for each one destroyed) or that they should just be replacable with a click of a button like in a FPS at no real cost. That CONCORD is a nice security blanket, cause someone (highsec dwellering carebears) knows someone else (the aggressive pilot) doesn't like to arbitrarily loose once they set out on their course of action. Who doesn't like it when you think you win that CONCORD comes out of no where and shoves it powdery confectionary covered fingers up their ass? It has to be really worthwile to pop ships that isn't in your favor to win (like lowsec), pretty sure you couldn't even motivate Goons unless someone was paying them to pop Mack cherries for nearly a month while getting their sec status cherry popped by CONCORD unless it was worthwile to even Goons. Human nature, what can they get out of it...

So, you have three options.
1. Walk away and go elsewhere for you fun
2. Gank them, to hell with CONCORD and I didn't need sec status anyway cause my life sucks, wife/GF/Dog left me, and my co-workers should be shot.
3. Uninstall and go back to WoW.

Or the alternative, get CCP to remove the feeling of significant loss. BUT WAIT WHAT! you say and spout its a game about consequences while trying to lick tears off my face (whoa! I don't fly that way). Its a video game FFS, no one likes being reset back that much for something they paid for. Get rid of the feeling of significant loss and pretty sure more people would venture into lowsec.


Sure, thats acceptable. So long as you have to ask me before you can fight me. You send me a pretty declaration fo war on fancy stationary and I just send back a hearty "No thank you." causing you to get angry. I would be willing to loose my BS priviledges, so long as you are paying for my subscription so I can have my fun and highsec is 100% safe carebear free land. You win, I win, we both end up being loosers cause neither of us gets what we want. Thats how I roll, no one gets the advantage or I will take my money elsewhere but CCP.

The problem isn't the High Sec it's the amount of resources that sov Alliances can farm and don't use except for supercaps massprod. Nerf moon extraction and the other way they have to make easy-isk with no risk, forcing them to do constant wars against each other for territories and resources. If they do this not only there is more pvp around but also they effectively nerf supercaps number.