Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Not sure I entirely agree. If the "defenders" dunk (or get solid allies to dunk) the "attackers" then they should be able to end it, especially if the "attackers" dock up and wont fight/have no exposed assets or the "attackers" should be equally trapped and exposed as the "defender".

I'm using quotes around terms because those who start the "defender" need not end the "defender", if you see what I mean?

I get the direction you're aiming for, but I we must consider situations where the tables turn.

There's nothing wrong with the cowardly pirate/smart predator, I would never try to tell someone else how to ply a sandbox game unlike some others.


Scanning isn't hostile, I said it should be 'suspicious' much like if someone walks up to your house and checks out your security. The -10 restrictions are a) a choice, you can buy and use tags to stay above it and b) meaningless to all intents and purposes as the -10 alt does not tool around in space looking for fights, he undocks in a gank cat and hits a target scanned by a totally safe NPC neut then gets melted by CONCORD 40 seconds after the job is done. If its a freighter gank then a neut in an NPC corp loots the wreck then jetcans for another NPC neut to legally launder it into their hold. The -10 is literally at no risk as it is only undocked when it is about to die anyway.

Freely shootable for all of 40 seconds before CONCORD vaporizes you anyway. It is little to no risk as you do not need to fly in space beyond to the gank and cannot be wardec'd as what would be the point? You don't need to undock as a ganker except for 40 seconds to go and die somewhere. The use of neut alts allows the ganker's -10 alt to completely negate the downsides of being -10. FacPo? They won't turn up before the gank is done. White Knights? I've flown around many areas with known miner gankers and never yet seen any.

I wasn't actually advocating such change, it was to make a point about the hypocrisy in Kaarous' argument about eating cake. As a code ganker he is doing the exact same thing. He is using NPC corps to negate any risk in his activities. If the indy players must have POS to make real profits thenwhy shouldn't a -10 char in hisec empire space not have to either dodge the law or dock in a POS that will allow them to? Any empire station inviting a -10 in is like a hotel inviting Norman Bates and his 'mother' to stay for a while. If the indy player must be at risk to operate by having Player corps and structures then so should gankers and wardeccers.

In fact that is one caveat I would add to any changes to wardecs (yes I did suggest some ways to try to improve it earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate as much as anything else). Any corp wishing to wardec another corp should only allowed to dock in a POS that they or an ally own (in the future structure system) as noNPC corp would even want a war party on its doorstep.. The defender should be able to hide in NPC stations (losing time), dock in their own POS (in danger in space), or leave the corp. The CEO should not be able to close the corp without some comeback and any wardec should follow them to any other corp they join. This would allow an aggressor to screw with the defenders industry by them running away but would also put the attackers into space where they can be attacked freely. If the defender wishes to counter dec to actively defend and prolong the war then they too would only be able to dock in a POS.

If you leave a corporation during an active war, a killright is generated that can be used by anyone with a director position in the opposing corp.

If the CEO decides to screw you over and disbands the corp, every member gets a killright.

That ends dec dodging nicely and neatly, with a minimal development effort on CCP's part.





Why should being less defended result in being more safe? Seems remarkably counter intuitive.

Besides, my suggestion allows for a similar result anyway, by letting a smaller corp alpha strike the attackers, exceed the war bond, and get the dec revoked early. Promotes conflict, not restricts it.

That's an interesting idea - I actually kind of like it. I think there would need to be a time limitation placed on these type of killmails though, like a period of 48-72 hours as opposed to the normal 30 days.


To prevent abuse.

That works, too. Just so long as the determination is made at the time the player leaves said corporation.

Depending on YOUR definition of PvP there are hundreds or their are none.
Keep reading for more on this in response to others.


Indeed what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
First you are running off half cocked here as they say. Where did I even suggest that you should be required to "grind". If you will set your anger and hatred for those of us that prefer the PvE game aside you would find that I stated that you should face consequences for YOUR decision to shoot others that are not valid targets. This is a direct quote of the part your anger and hatred has caused you to misinterpret, importnat parts bolded etc so you can find them easily.
" although I will not argue that the "grind" is the proper way to handle it."
You should face rather stiff consequences for your choice to shoot players that are not valid target. Perhaps standings and the required grind are not the proper way to handle them but at the moment I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. CCP are the ones who DECIDED THAT YOU MUST GRIND so vent your anger on them and not me.


Not sure your aimed this at me but I want to comment on it anyway.

Throughout the history of online gaming including EvE, PvP has always meant game play that puts 2 or more in game characters into a battle from which only one in will walk, run or fly away. In EvE this means 2 or more ships attempting to blow each other up.

I the last year or so there is this emerging belief that PvP describes any activity where 2 or more players are involved in ANY form of competition with each other.

I do not dispute that the second definition is correct from a technical standpoint, what I would argue is that since it goes against a decades old understanding of the term PvP in computer gaming it can be and often is the source for confusion and mi-understandings on these discussions and as such we should use the first definition to avoid those confusions.


You use alts as a way of dodging FacPo, Concord as well as other PLAYERS that may want to shoot your -5 or lower character.
They use alts or corp jumping to dodger a war dec that they do not want to be a part of
Only differecne I see here is that one is something YOU are doing so it is OK, the other is something your potential targets are doing so that is not OK.

The ultimate irony in your arguments here is this.
You want changes to the game because the current situation allows for players to "escape" from potential PvP (see first definition above) interactions and you consider that an exploit.
At the same time you use alts to avoid that same PvP(see first definition above) contact until such time AS YOU WANT TO ENGAGE in that activity, and this according to you is not an exploit.

Well news flash here sir, they are both VALID options provided by the game and only CCP can decide if one or the other is an exploit. And since players have been dropping and reforming corps, or dropping out into an NPC to doge war decs in high sec for as long as I have been playing this game the answer is very clear. Dropping corp to NPC or dropping and reforming is not an expoit in the eyes of CCP it is a valid game mechanic used by those who want no part of what they see as your worthless kill board padding war decs.

Oh I absolutely love this! I can create a new corp for newbros, get as many as possible and wardec it with my alt. I can roll the corp and get killrights on all of them!
Safari Time! Happy hunting!

That isn't anything you couldn't do already with the existing mechanics. Except you wouldn't even need to go to the trouble of deccing yourself, just invite them to a corp with the safety off and blow them up. Or heck, just shoot them during the war, since as the CEO you have intel on them.

Um, I'm note CODE.?

You guys totally miss the point. I can do this without 'tarnishing my good name', so to speak. And it also opens a whole new safari system for infiltrating a corp (that was done in by the corp-killing switch). The meta-gaming this would allow is wonderful in so many ways. I can think of a number of ways to capitalize on this already...

I did oppose that change in corp-killing mechanics, btw.

I'm still curious as to why people refuse to use options available to them other than shooting to harm people they so desire. I mean, if the 'industrial' guys are making such waves surely it is a trivial job to make your own?

People expect industrialists to learn direct combat skills - why does that expectation not extend to combat corps having an economic warfare wing? Napoleon and snowball would be proud indeed.

The cornerstone of EvE is indeed PvP, but too many people can't see past shooting.