Player Features and Ideas Discussion

That pretty much is the discussion.

what does the fact whether they are neutral or not have to do with countering them?

u can still use e-war, u can still switch targets, u can still bring neuts and u can still just plain shoot them.

the answer still stands, the counter to logi, neutral or not, is not just bring ur own logi, neutral or not.

You're kidding, right?

There's room for differing opinions on this subject, but nobody who has ever really played this game would regard that risk as anything but the very definition of insignificant.

Flagging yourself for anyone to attack is insignificant? Do that in a trade hub some time and tell me how well it goes. Yeah, they can dock up to avoid being shot by other neutrals, but while they do that they're not repping their fleet, either.

Heck, if the defenders are halfway competent, they can have people in an NPC corp follow the neutral logi around to gank them if they try to have an effect on the battle. Although I suppose assuming competence on the part of the typical highsec corp really is asking too much.

But then that's what this really is, after all. Trying to justify changing the game mechanics to make up for the not infrequent incompetence of the kind of corps who get wardecced.

No, it shouldn't be seen as problematic. Nevermind that, as we have been over before, there are TONS of situations in the game in which being a neutral in an NPC corp is the optimum situation.

The game's hallmark is cloak and dagger fuckery like that. And I honestly don't know how you can tell me it's risk averse, considering that the very moment they actually have an effect on the ships on the field, they are a valid target. They can be shot at just like everyone else, with the exception of the incredibly borked link mechanic.

Look, I hate NPC corps. I sincerely hope they change the game to ensure that no character older than 30 days of age can even join one. I don't want them to exist in the first place beyond the new player experience.

But until that happens, CCP is unlikely to change the game to CONCORD for an explicitly non hostile action. And problematically for that assertion, CCP is also unlikely to eliminate NPC corps.

No, we haven't been over it. You've stated it, I've pointed out that the statement is bullshit because you're directly comparing combatants to non-combatants as equals, and then you've conveniently ignored that because, prima facie, the comparison is idiotic and non-analogous.



Neutral logi isn't "cloak and dagger fuckery" to anyone but the newest player. Cloak and dagger fuckery, on its face, should be unpredictable. This is the exact opposite of the spanish inquisition: EVERYONE expects it, because it's the "correct" tactical decision. It's the objectively correct thing to do, 100% of the time. There's no cunning involved, and there's certainly no tradeoff.



...and as soon as their status as a "valid target" becomes relevant, they can dock. Does any other combatant get to do that? No.

Furthermore, does any other combatant get to wait until engaging before becoming a valid target? No, they have to deal with being a war target.



Boosters are known to be broken, please refrain from justifying one broken thing by pointing at another.

Using Neutral Logi, at first seems unfair, until the fact that you can,

A. Bring your own Logi to fights,
B. Bring your own neutrals to deal with the N-Logi
C. Ignore the fight and force them to fight on your side of the scale on a different time
D. See the Logi, make connection, like: There is a Guardian on the undock, I am wardec with a PvP corp, That is probably a Neutral alt. If 1. I am by myself, I should probably not come out in anything shiny, or 2. If I have friends online fleetup and see if we can cause some chaos.

some ppl do shoot suspects, especially if u ask some friends to come by and shoot the suspects repping ur war targets. or u can shoot them urself.

logi suffer from any weapons timer that the ship they are repping is under, so they share the same 'get out card' that all ships have.

not the definition of insignificant.



of course theres no trade off when the defending corp makes no effort to counter it. where as neutral logi does die from time to time when someone actually puts some effort into countering it.

Here's my two cents on this.

When I say I don't agree of war-dec mechanics if they enable "pay-to-grief," most people will assume I'm instantly supporting making hi-sec "safer" or more "carebear-friendly." What I'm saying is I don't support a system which doesn't make the game fun for both sides of the conflict. Remember, people, that this is a game - we pay CCP a sum of our real-life money (or have someone else do it on our behalf via plex) to have fun. If the wardec mechanic is not serving the purpose of entertaining the people that are affected by it, then it needs to be revamped. If one side of the wardec is having fun and the other isn't, I consider that the mechanic failing to achieve its purpose.

The problem here arises that the mechanic is flawed in such a way that it's not always fun to have a war declared against you, people know it's not always fun to have a war declared against you and some people actively use the wardec mechanic for the purpose of making things not fun for whoever they're declaring war on. From the perspective of whether that's right or wrong, my personal view is that I don't personally like it or approve of it, but I don't think it should be disallowed, restricted or banned. I think the mechanic should be changed to make wars more fun for both parties. Following this line of thought, punishing a wardec recipient for not participating in a war against them isn't going to work - carebears are more likely to just stay docked, weather the penalties, feel even more put-upon and likely lose interest in the game. True, that mindset isn't one that an individual should adopt if they play EVE Online, but we can't argue from ideal circumstances here.

Conversely, I don't approve of punishing wardeccers for frivolous or failed war declarations either, because defining which wardecs are and aren't "frivolous" or "failed" would be difficult and more importantly would set a dangerous precedent. There absolutely needs to be a formalised method of pursuing combat against opponents in hi-sec, and penalising the aggressor if they don't meet some arbitrary quota or target would put too much hands in the power of the recipients - under such a scheme, staying docked would actually become a perfectly legitimate tactic to grief an opponent.

Hi-sec war also has a variety of ancillary issues related to it - neutral logistics, neutral scouts, station games, local, etc. - all of which can't be dealt with too drastically in either direction without serious risk of disrupting other elements of the game, or (particularly in the case of neutral scouts) can't reasonably be dealt with at all. These elements can make a war one-sided (and thus not particularly fun for the underdog) but clever application of these tactics can turn a previously one-sided war into a legitimate fight.

My belief is that the way to fix hi-sec war declarations (and to a larger extent, war declarations in general) is to avoid any measure which will restrict or curtail the tactical options either side of the conflict has at their disposal, but instead on positively incentivising both sides to fight each other on comparable terms. Fixing this problem has to be done with carrots, not sticks.

some ppl do use in corp logi. failed for example, started using in corp logi as well as neut logi after the changes. Probably because they often fight in markets. The risk of neutral logi is greater than u want to pretend it is. Neut logi gets shot at. Whats pathetic is uve been rain-manning ur way through this entire thread. When ppl disagree with u its their 'flawed opinion', but when u say its 'undeniable fact'. Where ive killed neutral logi with this very char, and ur trying to say risk is non-existant.

no ones afraid of logi being forced into corp. I think its in keeping with the sandbox and the ethos of the game. why are u afraid of neut logi not being forced into corp?



if ppl dnt like non-consensual PvP, why in gods name are they playing a PvP game like eve where most of the PvP is non-consensual?

when a carebear goes about his daily chores, hes affecting the market which can damage other ppls income. so what is wrong with other players deccing that carebear to do the same to him, damage his income? This isnt a game where u pick and choose how players interact with u, its all or gtfo.



What do u have in mind?