Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Actually, nope.

It's just easier for me to direct CCP to an existing thread, rather than try and express someone else's concern, where I might miss something.

War dec's in highsec aren't in a good place. They're needed, so that assets in space have some kind of threat against them; however, it's entirely possible to have a corp doing nothing but wardeccing new corps, for no meaningful reason. Which leads to people hiding out in NPC corps, rather than engaging with a player corporation, becoming part of the community, and being more likely to stick around.

I just can't see an way to fix it so that they becoming meaningful, but not erect huge barriers.

The ability to have a social group in Eve is massive. It's a great one to have. But you hear about groups of friends coming into Eve, forming a corporation (People like having a group identify) Then being decced to the point of leaving. Less than ideal.

Maybe a 'limited' corporation, with its own name, logo, chat channel and mailing list, but nothing else (no POS, no offices. Effectively another NPC corporation) would be a good 'starter' for them, until they're comfortable and Eve has its hooks into them.

You can already make a private channel for groups of people, so, I think that is more or less taken care of.

Extending periods of insulation just makes the transition even more scary. BNI had it right to make their members grow up in low-sec and get blown up a lot - its a much better way to learn situational awareness than to slowly become a fatted mission runner and then one day, have the tornado squad show up. I'm 100% pro ganking, of course, just that it does come as a surprise to many of these people leading an otherwise insular existence. Extending the time until players are forced into a player vs player situation will not make the transition easier, best to just learn the facts of New Eden quickly.

It's not that the wardec mechanics need looking at, it's the tools for responding that need looking at. People need to be able to get allies or mercenaries easier, and in ways that do not promote solitaire style docking games. Removing or delaying the notification that an ally has joined on one side or the other would at least promote some risk to the whole equation - perhaps similar to kill rights; war rights that could be sold. The sort of horribly asymmetric warfare that most wardecs breed is just uninteresting most of the time - put some more tools in to give even the most sheepish looking corp some real fangs. There is so often almost no risk to the attacking corporation.

It is a bad idea to have "assetless" corps blitzing missions and mining in peace. The fact that an entity is capable of interacting with the economy should be enough reason to violence them. Safe corporations would also lead to even more maladjusted players rather than strong groups. Perhaps more study should he done on how successful corps form rather than considering coddling weak ones.

They already massively increased the cost of declaring wars, the net effect was to make it impossible for new players with limited resources to declare wars. The result of raising the bar in this way is that groups of newer players that would learn about PVP in highsec by being at war with other new players instead don't learn about PVP at all until they hit a point where they become attractive targets to more established highsec wardec corps.

At the level I currently play at the current war fees seem like a pretty fair balance between the old multiplication systems and the horribly broken inferno cost scaling. I do however feel that the base cost of wars between corporations, particularly those with less than 50 members is too high and prohibitive to newbros that want to murder eachother.

Also I think that it needs to be made more apparent to people that PVP in highsec is a normal thing, not somebody "griefing" you.

In my personal experience not knowing your strengths is just as crippling as not knowing your limits. Often times highsec groups on the defense in wars fail to take action and sit in station even when they have more than adequate assets available to utterly plow their aggressors.

The Inability of a defender to determine when they're in a strong position and a general assumption that resistance is futile is what allows highsec wardec groups to go wherever and do whatever they want with virtually no fear of losing a ship.

I agree that the cost right now isn't ideal. But I also agree that changing it won't have much of an impact on the real issues.

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees it's too easy for the corp that initiates the war dec. They get what they want, for very little cost, and the corp on the receiving end can't do much about it, or doesn't do much about it, in most cases, and this is what should be fixed.

I haven't thought much about how though. I do think that camping trade hubs with almost no risk (e.g. what Marmite does) needs to be looked at. E.g. if you aggress a war target, you can't dock or use gates for 5-15 min (something longer than the 1 minute it is currently) because the current mechanics just promote docking up to avoid real fights.

War decs currently are generally about ganking and making people feel unsafe PvEing. They should really be about creating good PvP opportunities and good fights/conflict. The corp on the receiving end of the dec should probably be given better incentives to fight back and better methods of doing so.

Quoting eve wiki : " . . . corporate wars allow the two warring corporations to attack each other with impunity, bypassing all security status penalties and CONCORD interference. . . " (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War_Declaration)

To begin with, I agree.

My idea is that a war deceleration
is split into 2 types of war decelerations.
The aggressor is give the option to include,
or not include, Empire space (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0).
That option would give the aggressor
a discount on the war deceleration should
s/he not include said Empire space as a zone of conflict.

Yet let us raise the price by 25% on war decelerations that span all space,
and let us give a discount on war decelerations that do not.

Thus a war deceleration that spans all space
would force CONCORD & NPC Structure turrets
to ignore all conflict[s].
And,
a war deceleration that does-not-include
Empire space (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0) would
1) Give full regular protection by concord and NPC Structure turrets in 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 space;
2) Within 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0 space neither CONCORD nor NPC Structure turrets would interfere.

*Point 2*
An Alliance, or corporation,
should be able to sue for peace
such that it can have solace in Empire space (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0) .

If not only to give new players the option
to temporarily leave their Alliance's dominated space
for the time being;
instead of, outright cutting themselves
out of their entire alliance or corporate
social structure that presumably, and on many occasions, brought them into Eve to begin with.


*Point 3*
The act of grieving new-players,
regardless of it being a EULA violation or not,
is absolutely not acceptable.

In fact, it is a well known RL corporate exploit,
for it opens up the exploit for rival RL corporations to wreck Eve's player base by paying of a couple of trigger happy \ö/
pilots to war-deck and destroy Alliances all day.

Hmm, spend 25 k Euro on a couple of plexes to **** CCP's stock up is a no brainer.

Thus there has to be an act committed to plug this exploit.
Hey, maybe it would not be my idea here...
but at least my idea takes a wicked axe chop at the problem.

That's just looking at the market cost and making the assumption that all goods are purchased from the market, which is a poor assumption.

Just being on some random chat channe land a mailing list doesn't really count. There is no unified "us" feel to it. The corporation is more then just a chat channel and a mailing list, with suspectability to war decs and awoxers. It's also a sort of symbol for unity.


The insulation problem is not caused by players or the leaders of these corporations. It's caused by game mechanics of missions. They are the primary means of PvE in high sec and actively disincentivise group effort, making the insulated soloing the best option for making isk insted of a group effort. While Incrusions are a group PvE activity they are a sort of "end game PvE" which has a high barrier of entry due to isk cost, skill point requirements, player skill requirement and need to be integrated in to the Incursion runninig community. What is needed to solve this problem is a completely new and improved mission system that actively incentivises grouping. In short more PvE that rewards group effort insted of punishing it = more PvEers involved with the community.



Noob corps aren't exactly in a place where they can hire help and rarely even have the knowledge of how WD mechanics or the flag system functions. While these could be improvements to the war dec system, they do nothing to the problem of a grifer corp wardeccing noob corps left and right.

Whatever your game is, I just want to be able to reach out and touch it.