Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Preface: from a role pay perspective I maintain CONCORD is increasingly becoming corrupt. From making it possible to declare endless war decs so long as your ISK flows into their coffers to accepting 'bribes' of clone soldier tags - we all know those CONCORD agents resell them for a profit, CONCORD is demonstrating an increasing thirst for ISK.

In EVE, providing you have the ISK, it is possible to perma dec a corp into oblivion. Since CONCORD is more than happy to accept ISK to 'look away' to allow X corp to dec Y corp, it should also be possible for Y corp to bribe CONCORD into dropping the Dec. Mutual Wars ignore this of course.

My thinking is this: generally a war accomplishes it's goals in two weeks outside of griefing. Destroy X POS, disrupt X corps income for a period, kill X pilot cause he ticked the contractor of the merc corp off, etc. Yet, not everyone in High Sec wants to PvP or be forced into an NPC corp to avoid it (even there you are only guaranteed safety by not undocking). A griefer corp can effectively shut a non-PvP alliance down completely into shuttering their doors and scattering the members to the winds or worse: into quitting the game entirely.

While a PvP character may not care about their target's view of the matter, the target's view of the matter may be that they did not care about PvP in the slightest. They may want to play an internet space ship game to enjoy spaceships with friends and not in an adversarial way with other players. A griefer corp is one that war decs without reason other than to engage in PvP without CONCORD interference or other people targeting them easily (otherwise, they would be in Null, WH, or even Low Sec) and more importantly, is not interested in settling the war through diplomacy <<---- that is the key: the agressor is doing it to grief in relative safety (meaning no one outside the war can shoot them) and they are not interested in ending the war because they simply want an easy PvP kill.

So, it would work like this: the aggressor war decs and the target does whatever it does. After two weeks, starting the fifteenth day, the target can bribe CONCORD to end the war by paying CONCORD twice the amount it cost the aggressor to war dec them those two weeks. After 24 hours, the war ends and the agressor will not be able to re-dec against the target corp for a full week. For an additional amount, that scales exponentially with the added time requested (marked in 24 hour periods), a target corp can bribe CONCORD into blocking further decs for an additional amount of time - a month should be prohibitively expensive. This would also block other corps from declaring war or renewing war decs for that period.

CCP often expresses, perhaps not in words but certainly in deed and policy, that it wants to see ISK drained. For a non-PvP inclined corp that ship spins until the dec wears out or simply disbands into NPC corps, there is no real ISK drain. Allowing corps to bibe CONCORD and even buy temporary protection from further decs, CCP will providing another ISK drain while allowing non-PvP inclined corps to remain intact.

If CCP is going to make it simple for PvP to take place in High Sec via War Decs, they should allow corps an option to weasel out of the war dec after a set period when the agressor is not interested in settling the war via diplomacy. And... I am somewhat thinking of this post as I write this proposal.

Now... to the wolves!

Common we bribed Concord to do the wardec :-)

Why do they need to wait before giving their counter bribe ?

I say that the counter bribe should be an option from the instant war is declared and, as long as the bribe to end the war is received before the war goes live, then the war it canceled. If the bribe is received after the war goes live, the war ends 24 hours later.

This feature is already there. Well sort of. Have your diplo contact the Initiator and work out a price..... the initiator can end it.

This is EVE of course.. you may get scammed..

Of course. But that is if, and ensure you understand that is a critical IF in this proposal, there is an actual diplomat that is willing to consider surrender options. Otherwise, if the attacker is ignoring diplomatic efforts, this feature is available.

No, Tsong, you are right, it would be over the top.

And for some people, disbanding is not a reasonable option either.

How long do actual high sec wars last pn average? I am sure CCP has the numbers.

My proposal is predicated on the diplomacy is denied in some cases. So actually, two options:
Flight (aka Turtle): How long should people turtle if they are not interested in PvP.
or
Fight: When eventually they can only afford a Rookie ship to fight back in, perhaps the War Deccing corp will drop it?


For some people, invalidating a war this way, IS the cheaper price.

That is all fine in well, but it is an opinion. It is said (I have said it myself) that undocking is putting on the Big Boy Pants as well. But it is an opinion ]and ALL opinions are subject to discussion but do not necessarily reflective of reality, or, in this case of EVE, reflective of an arbitrary decision.

If CONCORD serves as a consequence for un-invited PvP then being in a player corp or non-player corp means nothing as far as security is concerned. If CONCORD then allows PvP if you pay them, it is only logical that they can dis-allow it if you pay them at least an equal amount. If CONCORD only serves to allow the PvP gate in one direction, then why bother with CONCORD at all? Why not simply remove them completely from the game? People will learn flight or fight more quickly that way at least and should they choose to fight, they can act pre-emptively then.

Or is non-consentual PvP an actual problem when the control of it is not favorable to a would be aggressor?

After all, this is a Sand Box game, or is only a sand box for victimizers?

There is nothing auto-magical about this. At least, nothing more auto-magical more than being able to declare war to begin with. And if price is an issue, what is a fair price one should pay CONCORD to close the gate?



Cool. So why have CONCORD? Oh, because of this? "It serves as a consequence for illegal PvP." Again it is an arbitrary decision as to what is illegal PvP, why should it be illegal? If I can ask the police permission to kill my enemy, its ok, but if my enemy asks the police for protection they can be laughed at?



1 - Very True.
2 - Very True... even in a rookie ship.
3 - Nope. Not asking for a lock on the gate. I am asking for a reprieve when the aggressor will not afford one via negotiation. Two weeks of ship spinning and potential lost income is not a lock on the gate.

If CONCORD let the lion in my yard I want CONCORD to remove it after it has done some damage.

How about a sort of bind auction process:
- Aggressor pays a war starting bribe of at least x.
- Defender gets told that war has been declared. But they don't get told how much. They get to offer a counter bribe. If their bribe is higher than the war dec amount, and paid before the war kicks off, then there is no war. The aggressor gets their also get their ISK back.

Or an open auction:
1 - Aggressor pays an amount to Concord. Defender gets to see it.
2 - Defender has 24 hours to pay Concord an amount that is at least x% higher. If they do, the aggressors bribe is refunded.
3 - Aggressor then has 24 hours to pay an amount x% above the defenders bribe. If they do, defenders bribe is refunded and you go to step 2

In both cases, the aggressor forces the defender into either entering war, or paying an ISK price of the aggressors choosing. But in the first, the defender may end up paying way more than they need to.

For a period of time and not without significant cost for the length of it.