Jita Park Speakers Corner

Why should non-aligned players be tied to a faction in the first place?
Non-aligned players should be able to do whatever the hell they want, when they want. If they want faction war they know where it is. But they shouldn't be given stupid, easily-abused advantages like being undecable.

Yes, please.

And when you run out of ideas, make systems themselves less stable.

If sec levels or sovereignty change at a very low rate, say due to suicide ganking or factional warfare or Incursions or anything, really, players will adapt.

Jita could be 0.7 in half a year until people move to a safer trade-hub.

It's not like we haven't already moved from Yulai to Jita, or to new agents (at least two times), and there was a time when Incursion runners moved all over the map almost daily.

I should point out that this would almost instantly result in a major effort (largely by parties with no previous interest in FW) to degrade the security of Jita.

I make no comment on whether this would be a good or bad thing.

Wow amazing. Another "I want more faction fit mission runners to shoot" thread. Sure it didn't start like that but we are back to "individial wardecs". You have already gotten CCP to move L5 back to be only lowsec. You have made CCP to introduce npc corp tax. You have long ago made CCP remove masking effect of deadspace (lolcarebear exploer took a hour to find a site and you can probe him down in a minute). Recently you got a nerf on unprobeable Tengus. And all of this has given you less and less targets to shoot.

If you get CCP to completely remove L4s from highsec (or refrom highsec in such a way to no longer be highsec) you will see majority of your ooh soo much sought victims leave EVE; rest will do L3s or whatever is doable in new "true" highsec until they have money skills for one more in practice still unprobeable Tengu.

And ffs you can still suicide gank them. You won't get insurance but that just removed lolganks of not very rich fits. 2Bn fit will still be a profitable suicide.

People who are willing to take a risk are already there, doing 00 exploration and Angel missions in their unprobeable Tengus and 2 scouting alts. People who will at no point risk their PVE ships to ganks cant be made to change their mind in any way.

I guess you missed the part where I not only rejected the old concept of removing options from hi-sec but actually advocated returning Level 5s to hi-sec, albeit in a different way? The part where I specifically and explicitly said that people in hi-sec should be allowed the option to engage in high risk:reward activity?

My thoughts:

The key here would be to make it an intensive and lengthy process to change a system's sovereignty, so that even a totally undefended system can only change by 0.1 sec every 1-3 days or so, and maybe also mandate a somewhat lesser NPC event when threshold struggle between 0.5 and 0.4 occurs. So no one goes to work with their mission Raven in a 0.7 system and comes home to find it in a 0.1

And of course to limit the ability to affect sov to those who are actually registered in FW.

EDIT: That threshold event means that you would need a significant number of players to make a sustained, concerted effort to change a system sov, it wouldn't be something that a couple of guys could do on their own in a late TZ on a weekday. The NPC response alone would make the effort comparable to conquering a player sov system, and without being able to use caps/supercaps.

Well obviously. It has its appeal, as opposed to being lumped into some generic Faction War blob riddled with spies to the point of futility. If players want to go it alone and solo it in EVE, that's their choice. They just shouldn't have the unconditional support of CONCORD to do so. It kills industry in null, disincentivises teamwork in an MMO and lets anyone with an alt skirt PVP as it was intended. If your profile is so big that it makes you a target, perhaps then it's a time to join a group who can provide protection, eh?

One thing that hasn't seen much love in this thread yet outside the OP is the wardec mechanic. Quite apart from the obvious loopholes like alliance hopping, there's the issue of incentive to fight. Malcanis stated in the OP that there should be reasons to fight in a wardec. Right now the mechanic is largely used (as far as I can tell) by griefer pvp corps to get easy kills on indy kids running highsec towers and mission runners. While I do agree that these corporations should have the ability to force pvp on those evil evil carebears, I don't think it should be easy: the griefer corps should be forced to choose their targets a little more strategically. That said, making it harder to wardec people randomly would probably also decrease the number of wardecs, and thereby the total quantity of highsec pvp, which is not a bad thing. So we need some incentive to force the defenders to, well, defend themselves, and this seems to be a difficult thing to do without resorting to ham-handed artificial techniques.

One thing I'd like to see is the ability to bring third parties into wardecs legally: hiring mercenaries for protection. So if Terribad PVP Griefers wardecs Carebears R Us, CRU has the option of bringing a third party into the war to defend them. This would allow for highsec merc corps to flourish without just being suicide gankers/mission griefers/griefers in general, and also gives highsec carebears more options. Do we pay for protection? Do we risk less of our own money by fitting our own pvp ships and trying to fight off those griefers? Or do we just dock up for two weeks and pray they haven't found our towers in that 0.6 system? I'm sure there's terrifying balance issues with this that my sleep-deprived brain hasn't thought of, but that's what all the other forum warriors out there are for =)

The FAIL stills is here: you're still shoving more PvP down the throat of people who chose to live in hisec.