Player Features and Ideas Discussion

and lets suppose that u get ur extended dec against corp leavers, what are u going to do when they sit docked for 7 days, or use insta undocks and shuttles to completely avoid u all together?

will u whine that insta undocks and shuttles need to be nerfed? or that they should not be able to dock for 7 days? what if they then just dnt log on for 7 days? are u going to force them to auto-log in and auto-undock into ur optimal?

PvP will always be avoidable in some sense. thus deccing for pure kills has to be limited at somepoint.

ur self entitlement to shooting other players is as bad as the self entitlement that carebears have when they believe they should be able to play this game without the influence of others.

simples

defenders have options when decced. one of those options always has been, and always should be, to leave the corp and thus the dec. If a corp fail cascades under ur dec, u win, decs over. a war dec does not pay for targeting specific ppl, only the corp.

i spent my first year and a half (after the first two weeks mulling about) in this game in a 'griefer' corp, and was also frustrated when players left corp. but even then, our decs were never just about the kills. it was about the hunt, then the fail cascade, or getting ppl to leave an area, or withdraw a dec against our allies, and sometimes the weeks of non-stop POS bashing. many decs that were fails in the conventional sense (losing more than we killed) were successful in the objective we had started the dec for.

there was one time a particular war target would log in, and start mining in some distant system. so i'd run locates on him and start to make my way towards him. and once i reached the 23rd out of the 26 jumps, he'd just log off after about 10 mins of playing. it happened a few times, and was immeasurably frustrating. so what did i do? i waited for the war dec to end and then suicide ganked him.

for me, justice was served as i destroyed the ship he'd been flying during the dec, so i got as much reward as i would have gotten if i had caught him during the dec.

I've done lowsec and nullsec roams, they do not appeal to me, wormholes, now; are sparsely populated, when apocrypha first came out we got loads of WH kills, now we get maybe 1-2 people per 10-20 holes. FW has never appealed to me. Also, it is not 'pure kills' I want, I want to kill people using the war mechanic, it is the one I like using the most, saying "No **** this, go do this instead" is pretty stupid in a thread dedicated to wardecs, this also applies to your post below; you seem to think I've not done low/null/WH, I have and I find it to either be dull and tedious, or so time consuming that one must be at their PC 23/7, wardecs allow you to do things at your own pace, which is why they appeal to me.

I do more than wardecs, I do alot of highsec and some wormhole PvP, though this thread is about wardecs, we are not talking about anything else.



No, if they use insta-undocks shuttles and safespots they will be smart players and have bested me, I come across this alot during wars and it does not bother me in the slightest, this is a player being smart and using his wits to evade me, rather than just dropping corp and chilling in an NPC corp until it's safe for them to come back.

You make alot of posts about how self entitled I am, look at yourself, lording over me like you're some master of the universe, get over yourself and for the love of god learn to speak some basic English, we are not texting eachother here.

You also seem to think I'm in wardecs just for the kills, I'm in it for all the reasons you've listed except shooting POS', but when you wardec a corp and their members melt away into an NPC corp, join back up, you dec them again and the same keeps happening, it is obviously an issue, the only solution is suicide-ganking and this is done when specific members require specific attention, though it should not have to be the only option and it is also being continually nerfed, CCP are making it harder and harder to impose non-consensual PvP onto people in hisec, this is a problem.

This should happen... Or the Dude needs to Pay Concord a 50m fine to get out. As noted, the Defender has the benefits or Allies. Not the aggressor... which I believe should stay that way. If the aggressor can't hack what the Defender brings in as an Ally, too bad, that's their risk. But, for an Individual, to just bail out on a whim is crap... 24 hour clock and a "Pay off" to Concord should be amended in, as joining a Corp/Alliance is part of Their Risk.

Hello again mr Troll. You have said a lot a stupid things over these two posts. This takes the cake. At least your repetitively droll arguments used to be coherent even if the were built on faulty logic and factual ignorance. But you reveal a lot.

Basil Pupkin is perma docked at Jita. He evades pvp; but you cant evade it if you dont undock. So one of them is a lie.

He is 3.5 years old- hmm so if not a trader then he is cooking up for something. Which means you will undock again someday. And in so doing, eventually lead a patient man to your alts. 3.5 yrs is long time to cook a peep for anything but pvp. I really hope you are cooking up a combat pilot so you can see your T2/T3 get taken out by a younger but more experienced pilot. Real experience = priceless.

Your fond of using fallacious arguments. War of the bucket you say? proves that one war 800 years ago was mutual, you say? Did you read the part about it being a series of retaliatory escalations and generational hatred? Nope your just trolling.

You have made so few valid points, so so little to invalidate.
From wikipedia: Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.
Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals.

and the definition of arguments / appeals from authority, which is where all your arguments ever seem to stand:
Argument from authority is a common logical fallacy ... any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence ... because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.
Since all your appeals and judgements are based on your one time at band camp philosophy of: I have evaded pvp so I know what im doing and I saw this 100 man corp once attacking a miner so I know everything about war decs, and they even more comical proof you continuously provide that pvp is only possible for those with 100mil + sp. You sir, attempt to validate your invalid arguments through all these fallacious means.

and finally, come now basil... your ad hominem (from wiki: fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.) attacks on my intelligence and credibility show how desperate and ignorant you truly are. I may not be particularly bright, but I am smart enough to know that you are not an idiot. Do yourself a favor and dont degenerate into one.

Flaw in Judgement? Many times I've seen players run to dock, leave corp, undock and move on their marry way like they were never affiliated with with said Corp/Alliance. Does this work in RL, hell no it doesn't. In fact a 24-48h timer and a fine equal to war cost is still getting off scott free by comparison. And honestly, so what if they never undock till that timer is up... They will at least have paid with time and isk... And not with nothing of consequence. This idea isn't to Solve the issue... Just to create enough of a deterent to want to leave. CCP Montra afterall is "Actions have consequences". And it should be more than, they can't come back into corp for a week or whatever that time is. That's just lame as that doesn't necessarily hurt the individual bailing out.

This is an interesting approach, and got me thinking. Shouldn't we focus more on preventing the creation of PvP-evading corps, instead of playing whack-a-mole with wardec evasion non-exploits?

What if:

- the corp creation fee were 50M (or equal to whatever the wardec fee was)
- a corporation requires 3+ players at all times, or is automatically disbanded (specifically nerfing the practice of placing each character on an account in a different one-man corp, and jumping between them in case of war)
- a corporation requires a weekly upkeep (of say, 10M)
- the NPC tax rate was increased to a more noticeable 35%

The impact on a normal player corp (i.e. an active one who chooses the benefits of a corporation in exchange for participation in wars) is minimal, while significantly nerfing the one-man PvP evasion non-exploit style of corp. Someone who doesn't want to participate in a highsec wardec could still drop corp to an NPC corp and pay a significantly increased NPC tax rate, but will no longer have the option of having the benefits of a corporation without consequences for that choice.

This would perhaps also cause more players to think twice before making a meaningful choice to create a corp, or remain in an NPC corp.

So, you want to introduce extra cost for being in hisec, with no protection from grief dec.
People who can't fight still won't fight. You just buff the griefing aspect of grief dec with more incentive to unsub. Good job!

What benefits do you speak of? The lack of 10% tax? If a potential target owns a POS, they can just pull it down in the 24h grace period before the war goes active then drop to NPC corp, rinse, repeat. Or as you said, he could just switch over to another corp and carry on.


While we're at it, shouldn't they make it so you can't unanchor POS modules once you've been wardecced? Certainly that would help your idea of wardecs being about POS', since right now wardeccing to kill a POS carries the same risk of a person dropping corp.
Right now, if you don't want you, or your POS to be shootable in a wardec you can easily make it so, this is unbalanced, defenders already have the ability to call in allies or make a war mutual, wardeccing someone is a risk, being in a corp should carry the risk of being wardecced, leaving corp before that war goes active completely removes that risk.

Can't you see the problem here? Sure, you can suicide gank them, but in a system that's above 0.5 it's going to take an awful lot of catalysts (probably thirty or so) to kill their mission BS, suicide ganking is now only really for killing lightly tanked ships, killing faction/deadspace/officer fitted ships or killing someone you have a huge grudge on, suicide ganking those 15 members who all dropped corp is not a viable solution, unless you're the type of guy who would drill a hole in masonry using a toothpick.

Not quite.

I live in faction war farmland, so I thoroughly understand that some people don't want to PvP and would rather pretend to be an automated program in peace. This is fine, but these people shouldn't have the benefits of being in a corporation, as they aren't willing to accept the tradeoff of potential war.

Non-engaged PvE players can do *exactly the same thing* as they can do now, except they will belong to an NPC corp, instead of a one-man tax-and-wardec evasion corp.



The weekly upkeep and 3 minimum active members were focussed on making it inefficient to make a series of wardec evasion corps, leaving them inactive, but hopping between them in times of war (especially for non-engaged players with a single account - this is why 3 minimum characters were chosen).

I think a weekly upkeep fee based on the number of members of corp would also achieve the same effect.