Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I defiantly don't speak for marmite lol. This would destroy our alliance in its current form. A limit of 5 wardecs??? what would we do?

Step 1 would be slashing the activity based research and production fee's on Starbases to half that of the system they are in, while increasing the fees in station by around 50%. Anyone doing larger scale production should have very compelling reasons to do it out of a POS, not a station. Unlimited station slots was a terrible idea by my opinion.

Anyone who has subcontracted something out knows you get charged out the ass for their time, their experience, and everything they need to do to finish your job. There is nowhere near enough incentive to manufacture in a POS that can be attacked.

I also find POCO's largely ineffective as a conflict driver in highsec. If the suggested loss involved with either taking or defending a POCO is larger than the moderately-small amount of isk it produces, people tend to just cut their losses and let it be taken.

I would prefer POCO's be moved to a standalone structure or POS mod, that would enable the corp members of the owning corp to use POCO type effects across the constellation. Losing the structure would mean that people are then forced to launch the pickup rockets instead of shipping to a POCO or POCO replacement thing.

But frankly, if you wardec a corp and they want to go full yellow bellied coward and all drop corp and flee to the corner of the empires or take down their tower and roll it into a new corp, I feel completely uninterested in making them stop.

People like that don't magically htfu and start providing interesting content. They run away, or they stop playing. Since I considering them useful to the game if for no other reason than by providing CCP money to improve the things I do in game, supporting any system that ties them down or harshly penalizes them until they no longer want to play, in retaliation for not playing the game according to how you think is should be played (You in this case meaning any member of the highsec wardeccing, bumping, or ganking crowd) is not on my list of things to do.

I don't honestly consider the current system all that bad. You pick on the slow, the stupid, and the ones unwilling to put in effort, and the ones who are smarter, or faster, or just plain willing to take down their entire POS and put it back up again to dodge a wardec can mitigate the effects your war.

"what would you do to improve wardecs and enable conflict in highsec?"

"Duh! I'd massively buff industrial players!"

You mean the Poses they get 24 hours notice to empty their loot from? Oh wait, it's not 24 hours, it's longer, because for some reason they get reinforcement timers in highsec. Effectively, you're asking for a huge buff to industrial players, while making highsec PvP players have to fruitlessly shoot way, way more structures that barely cost anything in the first place. But wait, there's more! If you don't want to grind structure timers, you can go right back to the untenable status quo, except with every industrial player in the game having their income doubled!

The fact that you think people wouldn't see through that trite nonsense is just insulting.

The point of this is not to massively buff carebears. It's not to turn highsec into small scale sov warfare, either. It's to enable conflict, to make it more likely to happen, not drastically less.

Nope, that's still you, wanting to collate wardecs with structure grinding.





As opposed to you? The only way you aren't disagreeing with "buff wardecs" is when that really means "not so stealth nerf them".

You're projecting like a mofo right now.




Because conflict is what keeps new players subscribing, not chewing on rocks like a mentally handicapped dog. There is no equivalency between the two sides. One wants something to improve the game, the other wants something that benefits them but hurts the game.

That's not even my opinion. It's CCP's data.



Thanks for showing that you haven't read the thread, in any case.



The really funny part is that it didn't even take a page after that accusation was made(I believe by you) to see you and Corraidin fluffing each other about your oh so wonderful idea to basically ruin the whole point of wardecs.

Hypocrite.

It's been mentioned before how the SP difference between a grief dec's aggressors and defenders can be so why not place a limit on the hull size that can be used to attack based on the defender's corp size?

Corps/alliances/coalitions that have 1-50 members total can use hulls up t1 frigs and t1 dessies
51-100 up to t2/faction frigs, t3 dessies, and t1 cruisers
the trend goes on.

say the marmites decs a corp of 48 people, they can't use anything bigger than a t1 frig/destroyer to fight, BUT can attack larger hull ships of the defender. If that happens the limited engagement kicks in and allows retaliation just to be fair. If either side attacks the other in a ship larger than the specified size and isn't in limited engagement with the WT, concord pops them if in high sec (no killrights generated). Oh, and if the defend corp adds three members nothing changes because the war is based on the member list at the time of the dec. EDIT: forgot to mention defender's mercs. They would be bound the same way as others in the sense of hull size since the dec was to a corp of 48.


This way, even small corps can get into war with low SP players, aggressors get content and a challenge since they can't fly their shiny ships and utterly curbstomp their WTs. YAY frig roams!


aaaaand here comes Kaarous to tell me how wrong i am to place further restrictions on war when wars are meant to get rid of concord, blah blah blah.

I do realize the large corp ≠ high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.

Addendum: I admit i didn't take into consideration mass war decs, but i still stand by my idea. I suppose it would be annoying to fight WT from many war dec'd corps of different sizes, but i suppose you can't have it all.Perhaps Concord can announce hull size in the war dec mail?

then things default to the original reasons for avoiding war: SP disparity, unwillingness to participate due to either choice or lack of skill, or just isn't worth fighting. If the defenders knew they were facing off against ships sizes comparable to their own skills, they'd be more incline to join in the fighting because they know they at least they can make a dent.


Naturally, there are those that don't want to fight one way or the other, there's nothing to be done in that instance.

Skills in what hull? A low SP person may not have many SP in frigates at all. And a high SP person may not have any SP in Battleships but have maxed every race of Frigate to V including T2 weapons to V.
Restricting hull size does not do anything to reduce disparity.