Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It IS okay to gank. It's abso-*******-lutely okay to gank, and so we come to your root problem: You ascribe moral values to gameplay behaviors that fall well within the rules of the game.

It's objectively okay to gank, just like it's objectively okay to put hotels on park place and boardwalk and just like it's objectively okay to bluff when playing poker. Merely being to another player's detriment doesn't make an action not-okay.

I believe i went over this, some sort of objective based combat that encourages both sides to fight. With a significant cost to the aggressor if they lose and some prize for the winner. Something that makes the incentive fighting not running/hiding or ganking.

To end the dec sooner? Maybe have the concord add some kind of bounty? A lot of players in high sec would probably enjoy fighting a war dec if it wasn't so guerrilla tactics based.

Under your suggestion, their best option, since your suggestion has forced the attackers into a small area around their tower, is to just go elsewhere.

Meanwhile the attacker is stuck babysitting a structure and paying a weekly fee to do it.

Do you not realize just how bad this suggestion is? How game breaking?

Or maybe you do realize that, and you're just trying to strip incentive away from a playstyle you dislike. Since you've basically admitted that anyway, my money is on the last option.

All of this back and forth, you're a carebear, you're a griefer crap is just that: crap. The only problem with the current system is that it creates an incentive to target smaller groups and a disincentive to targeting larger ones. My corp was decced by one of the merc groups and I was more than willing to stand up and fight. Then as I was bringing myself some modules with my alt, I got to see what I'd be fighting and it made my willingness to fight pointless. I saw no point in losing a Caracal(as a primarily indy player at the time it was the baddest ship I could fly) in a fight against two or three T3 cruisers, two or three logi, two or three interceptors and whatever else they had in the system. As a small group spread out across the US and Europe, we could muster 2 or 3 pilots max. The cost structure is just plain backwards. It makes no sense that it's cheaper for the Goons to wardec us than it is for us to wardec them.

So I want to wardec your corp.

Objectives:
* Tears
* Generally making your eve experience miserable
* More tears
* Killing your ships
* Making fun of you for not knowing how to avoid wardecs
* Making you post hilarious forum threads like this one
* Did I mention tears

Hmmm, wardecs are on trial now. Big surprise there.

CW 2.0 isn't enough. Literally protects you from making mistakes in high-sec. Mistakes people learned from, and made them more situationally aware. Hmmmm, I wonder how older players ever survived.

Barge buff 1 gives the option of tank and an ore hold. Yet people still sit in anti-tanked barges and exhumers. Barge buff 2, this summer, will effectively give a fighting barge. Not to mention a cloaky mining frigate. These tools will exist, but it doesn't take much pondering to know how many will continue to opt for yield, rather than tank. About the same number that "got smart" with barge buff 1.

Hull rigs, in particular, will make Orca's have ridiculous EHP, not to even get started on freighters. But something tells me that general greed will make cargo freighters prevalent, much like yield barges, which in turn will make this about as much of a waste of dev time as the barge buffs.

And now we get to wardecs.

Let's not forget that they already had their prices raised for the aggressor.

For 50m isk, you can literally make 40 or so shell corps, provided you have the alts. Turning a 50m wardec fee into 2b if they really want to chase you around.

Let's not forget a corp can be folded 40-50 times, and reopened, for the same cost of that fee.

Let's not forget you can simply drop corp, and hide in an NPC corp.

Let's not forget you can dock up and station trade for the duration, cutting little into your precious isk per hour.

Let's not forget you can hire allies. For peanuts.

Let's not forget that after so many members the wardec cost increases, making small corps really have to dig in their wallets for costs.

Literally the only thing this will accomplish is another blow to non-consensual pvp. Literally. In a game that supposedly "embraces" non-consensual pvp.

And it won't make any difference. You know why?

Because CW 2.0 made little difference. It only hindered future players, protecting them from making stupid mistakes, that make you learn a valuable lesson, and not be entitled, constantly bleating "Y U NO CATER SPECIFICALLY TO ME, CCP!?"

Because barge buffs made little difference. They are still fit for yield. They will still be fit for yield after barge buff 2, and the people that will use the interesting battle-Skiff and the Prospect, will be PvPers, or content creators. Not miners.

Because rig slots on freighters will make little difference. I will be sure to mail the OP a link when the first cargo-fitted freighter goes down. Hull rigs, you say? I wonder how many Orca's will still be as anti-tanked as they are now.

Every single time a typically high-sec exclusive mechanic comes under fire, it is molded to favor the victim. And do you know what the victim does with their newfound victory? The mechanic they bleated for to be changed, over and over? Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

So tone down the entitlement. Use the tools you are given, just like every other player in the game.

If we begin talking about war-dec entitlement, I would rather see following wardecs for people who leave corp.

Or reduced costs.

Or the inability to run, making the defenders either dock or fight....in a game.......wait for it.......that is PvP-centric.

Or a hundred other things to make wardec's actually interesting.

C'mon, who are you really fooling here, OP? Certainly isn't me, and judging by some of the responses in the thread, not anyone else, either.

Wardec's certainly need a balance, but not one that further favors the defender than the current system.

Why?

YOU are the one saying that targets should be incentivised to fight in battles they CANT WIN, not us



What? Towers are free to fuel when not at war now are they? Dont be obtuse, you know very well that when I say WH, its one they already settled.

Dont act stupid
EDIT: I re-read that. Your point is beyond flawed. You are now forcing attackers to pay for a tower to defend THEY DONT EVEN WANT.

Way to promote EVEN MORE ganking



Then you need to define what an "actual war " is in your mind?

Do you think that if War were Declared then I should be allowed to carpet bomb ALL your Industries, gas your clones and basically raze you and your corp to the ground?

Because that is WAR my friend

Now THATS a war


Soviet Style