Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If you can have a viable counter to something that is in game, than it is not broken. The Neutral logi can be countered. I listed several reason, rather than the just bring your own. I assume you have friends you play with that are outside of corp? Bring them with you. Or have a alt that can do the same. Just have a BB, ECM the offending repper.

It's all about if you have the resources to meet that requirement. Also when did I mention an Off Grid Booster? I was talking about Neutral Logi. If the corp you're in has OGB buffing your aggressor, then simply, you know...move system.


Also, the engagement rules are consistent, do you get concordoken for ship scanning? Cargo scanning? Concord only punishes aggressive actions in space. As a game mech, it works as intended. Punishment. It's not there to save you. Concord is not the police. They are not put in highsec to watch over the Highsec dwellers, They are only there to keep everyone from blowing each other up.

If you want to argue inconsistencies, Why can I Ship scan and not go suspect, but I can't repp a random person without going suspect? I demand a consistent action from concord.

Neutral repping is not an offensive action, and therefore does not deserve concord response. It however does help people who are acting aggressively and that is why they are yellow. If no one wants to shoot it, why is it the games fault? Blame local for not giving a **** that your awesome Stabber is suddenly out classed.

Also how is using neutral reps a risk free investment? You have to train an alt, that must be subscribed, either by plexing it, or paying the fee. So step one, you are making a ISK/RLT investment into something that may not pan out. You also have to pay for the repping ship, even if you don't care about the K/B of the repper.

Maybe it's not risk/reward. More like Investment/Reward, something is being paid. If you are not willing to pool that sorta investment then you are simply being outclassed by someone with an economic advantage. If he can play the game and fund two accounts and use them both, And you can only have one. Then yeah it's unfair.

But so is EvE, So HTFU.


The real problem with wardecs is that they offer nothing more than PvP in highsec. It's not the tactics that are involved. It's the fact that the defending corp, is not really defending anything other than their pride. If they don't have anything to protect then why fight? Keep the corp jumping, I don't care if some drops corp. But give corps a real purpose for being in a corp, and staying in a certain system.

If we want to talk about improving Highsec wardec, Corps need a reason to form, rather than it being just a social club that makes it easier to hang out with your friends do things together. I can do that, without a corp anyways. Just make a public hub.
The reason wardeccing corps are so common is because people can share a wardec, it's one of the few systems that make a corp worth forming, that shared bonus via standings and such.

If you want to improve wardecs. You need to improve the Corps. Give them bonuses, like system wide effects if they mission there. Such as Multiple local scans so someone can see the system ahead of them, or decreased prices when it comes to locator agent, and high rewards from missions, not just isk, but the chance of having blueprint give as a reward. And if that corp disbands or some drops they are forced to do it again.

In terms of 'winning' a wardec? Is it the corps that burns the most ISK? Kills the most ships? How about in order for a defending corp to have the bonuses mentioned above, certain anchored structures must be placed. If the aggressing corps takes it/destroys it, they get a point.

If the defending corp defends the structure they get a point. it could be done like so, Three members of the Aggressing corp attacking a structure, those three pilots are flagged to the defending corp. Those three members that attacked the struct must have their ships destroyed before the struct falls. If they get blown up, point for the defenders. Only the members who started the attack must be killed. If reinforcements come in from the attacking force they can pull DPS on the Struct but they can are not flagged and do not need to be killed. If the attack fails, the Scrut then goes into reinforce mode and can not be attack again for say 12 hours.

At the end of the war, if the aggressor wins, they are now getting a bonus from the system. Not the full bonus the defending corp had at the start of the war but it's something for them to build on. If the defending corp wins, they keep the system and say get a some 48 hour bonus to Mission income, or some such thing, And the attacking corp can not redec for another 2 weeks.



It's not the best idea, and it's can be exploited, but it's better than what the OP has asked for, and it benefits everyone. Thats my two cents anyways.

Let me address you to the specific part of the statement you quoted that addresses this specific issue.


I don't support an end to nonconsensual PvP. I support a way of making those subjected to nonconsensual PvP engaged in its outcome and willing to participate in it.

Notice how both of those things couldn't be shot at on grid, like logi can?

That's the difference.

I apologize I actually missed this post originally.

Wallet transfers are needed inside the corp, not just to the outside world, in case you meant for nonWTs, see below.

Contracts flagging could work except ... more alts to act as middlemen, and its instantly broken, as well as NPC corps that can't enter war, even if you somehow fix NPC corps, you are still left with the middlemen that go to war to keep dodging the effect.

There is no way you can ever be sure to get the alt hauler forced in corp / war with main (short of simply putting all characters in the game in the same corp, but this would be even more stupid).

didnt even read the post. theres a surprise.



willing to participate, as in, consensual?

no matter how much fun u make it for ppl, theres will be ppl who dnt want to participate because it gets in the way of what they do. im not supporting highly suspicious of any agenda based on the idea that war decs are not ok until everyone wants to participate. that just leads us to WoW style arenas.

u still have to actually propose a mechanic. so really, what is ur proposal to make wars more engaging? and why would everyone want to participate?

Also I found the reason for this giga-thread,

http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=21890315

Actually if you knew how to check stuff, you would notice that was not part of a war.

Now you're trying to deflect, by making it about him instead of about the topic.

It's not even a clever disguise for the fact that the thread really is about you suggesting something that would benefit you personally.

Your motives and actions are purely selfish, and it's plain to see.





That's because he doesn't suck at EVE. Smart gameplay that you are unwilling or unable to use for yourself does not mean the game is broken.

It just means you're bad.

I have. The two are not inconsistent.

War dodging is in no way an exploit just as people being able to arbitrarily wardec you isn't an exploit. If people switch corp your wardec has interfered with their business.