Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How about: The Corp that gets decced receives part of the money payed for the wardec :P.

[Edit] Or the winner receives the money... so if you let your war run out the decced corp gets the money paid for the war.

The newbro-wardec "problem" is more an NPE issue than a wardec issue. It's not difficult for a new player to fly safe in a war or even avoid the consequences of a war altogether. Blame also goes to ****** CEOs for being ******.

Wars are trivial to avoid, this is wholly and entirely unessisary.

Yes war decs need changes but completely defanging them isn't one.

No you can't just set up a ****show Corp ,grow fat and expect the predators to leave you alone.

If you defang wars we will turn to other means and then ye will have something to complain about.

Right now we have CODE. Imagine if marmite , ourselves and the other mercenaries started ganking...

That's an oft repeated falsehood; wardecs are trivial to avoid, dropping to an NPC corp being the least of the ways to do so. While they may drive some players away, such is the nature of Eve; CCP appear to be OK with Eve not appealing to everybody, it's one of the up/downsides of producing a niche game.

For instance; one of the fastest growing newbie corps in Eve has been wardecced by various mercs for the last month or so, most of the wardecs have since dropped.

Some of the mercs behind the dropped decs have been providing support in the form of experienced FCs, SRP donations and joint combat ops against the remaining decs; the members of that corp are having a whale of a time making the mercs behind the longest standing active wardec look rather silly.

Watching trade hub station huggers whining about their T3 and BS fleets being blobbed and station camped by mainly newbies and a smattering of former bears in T1 fleets under experienced leadership is rather amusing.

Citation needed, especially in view of the fact that changes to the EULA and the introduction of plex for services has changed the way that people use alt accounts leading to an apparent fall of logged in players.

Now this, is constructive... certainly a lot more so than the majority of posts have been, it's no wonder OP hasn't replied. I'm impressed how a suggestion for a mechanic change becomes a rally for Wardec rights instead of a discussion of the proposed change.

From what I read in the original post the issue is exactly what is spelt out here. and where tying Decs to kilrights may not work something like increasing cost based on current number of active wars might.

I do as well. it forces the deccers to chose the wars that they really want to actively fight. or spend buttloads of isk.

Ralph speaks the truth, if wardecs were to be defanged, the resulting shitstorm would make the antics of James's band of rapscallions look tame.

Be careful what you wish for.

As member of a wardec group.. I always agreed on that. Currently it is just throw money at a gamble that people will not just leave corp. THat is boring


I think that the wardeccing corp should be forced to have a specific new structure deployed (now that new structire system is being made that would be easy). PUt half of the wardec cost inside the structure (simbollically) and it is returned after the war ends. But if any group that is at war with the war dec group manages to complete the entosis + reinforcement cycle it gets ALL the money from the current wardecs.

That will make groups want to fight or at least hire other mercs to go fight for them. The war dec group also need to not overextend their capabilities.


EVERYBODY WINS!!!

You miss the point, I'm going to steal a complaint from the Sov debate:

The attackers should have some skin in the game, some risk. Currently there is no such requirement, should an attacker wardec the wrong corp, there is no meaningful harm one can inflict to them. They can dock up and hide, they have no structures to burn, nothing.

Why would it be a bad thing to create something for the attackers to lose? Why should their greatest risk be "damn, we kicked over the hornets nest, best dock up"

We used to fight the russians a fair bit and you know what happened? After they saved their POS they would RF every single POS you and your friends had in the area, just to send a message. That's the part which is missing from high sec war decs, you do not have that option and I believe you should.

I don't want decs constrainted, I simply would like the opportunity to go kick over the attackers sandcastles. Except there is currently no requirement, nor incentive for them to have one in the first place.

Do you think 85%+ of wars having no kills is healthy? Do you no think we be looking to add an incentive for BOTH sides to fight?

What would be the downside of something like ensuring the aggressor had to have a structure of some sort which should you desire you can destroy?

Why? Attacking something in Eve is about attacking something. You are trying to take someone's stuff or some resource. They should be forced to defend it, or lose it, just like sov. You are not playing a game of consensual capture the flag, or whatever else you are imagining. You are fighting a war.

The reason 85%+ of wars end with no kills is precisely because most defenders have nothing on the line. They can evade the war at little cost. That will be changing with the new structures which will not be so easily taken down in event of a wardec. I expect that alone will increase the number of productive wars, but honestly most are still going to result in no kills as long as players can evade the war with no long term cost.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with asking the wardeccers to have a structure to facilitate the war, as long as the war itself is not tied to it. Perhaps wars could be capped at some reasonably small number (5?), but in order to go beyond that a corporation would have to deploy a slightly expensive "war command tower". This would allow mercenaries to continue to operate who run multiple wardecs, but then they would have to commit to defending a structure to do so. I think the ally mechanic would need to be revisited then though, as it is currently the aggressor has no idea who they are going to be fighting in 48h and this would be a strong deterrent to declare wars if a valuable structure is on the line to potentially anyone in Eve.

But the attackers should not be burdened with artificial costs or restrictions in a PvP game. The burden always has to be on the players generating an income or harvesting a resource. If you want players to have safety, then give it to them, don't force attackers to jump through made-up hoops in hopes it provides safety. Wars don't make money - they cost money and thus cannot be too onerous to declare or no one will make them and the game will stagnate. Conflict and destruction are good for the war economy of Eve and for generating content and thus the ability to attack must be accessible and mechanics that discourage players from taking the risk of declaring wars avoided.