Player Features and Ideas Discussion

That's the whole point though, isn't it? Unless we get a full risk vs reward rebalance in highsec, wars, however an arbitrary mechanic they may be, are wholly necessary due to the existence of Concord.

Concord should not really exist, and CCP knows it. That's why wars exist to remove them for a fee between two groups.

And your idea for that incentive is even more arbitrary, and worse, adds safety to highsec.

My own set of ideas on the matter involve heavily increasing the relative value of a player corp when it comes to income generation. It's posted in Norgen's older thread about wars.




And that will remain the case so long as dec dodging is permitted to exist. It has relatively no cost or consequences, and allows you to ignore fully half the risk in highsec. Frankly, it is overpowered, and so are NPC corps.

If you want people in player corps to start defending in earnest, it does not involve any more safety. There is entirely too much already.

Structure shoots are not fights, when you get right down to it.

If the defender really is willing to fight, and capable of contesting the structure, then they can win any fights against the attacker anyway, and force them to drop the dec or leave the defenders alone. Anyone who could use this mechanic, does not need it, basically.

This is a non starter. Simple as that.

Why? If the attacker is determined, despite a loss, why shouldn't it continue?

Firstly, because it invalidates structures destruction, which will never happen.

Secondly because there are already too many ways to get out of a wardec, so unless dec dodging is going to be removed and/or banned, your position is untenable.

Thirdly because it defeats the purpose of the mechanic existing in the first place if the defenders can just turn it off by hitting a structure with a ten minute entosis cycle.

Fourthly because, by handcuffing the war's very existence to the structure, you are actively (and I suspect knowingly) discouraging dynamic content by forcing people to stay within a close enough area to defend the stupid thing. Gone will be roams, one man shows, and most smaller groups.

This is a non starter. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 isk.

That's not valid at all. It is trivially easy to avoid war decs themselves and war targets during an active dec.

Trying to lie and claim that the poor bears have no options just makes you look foolish. I'll tell you straight up that I am not going to read any more of your suggestions, either. Any way to dissolve a wardec without formally surrendering to the attacker is unacceptable.

Structure destruction is easily protected by ensuring whatever sequence ends the war is comparable to taking down a structure. The war timeframe should be adjusted to allow for either to happen within reason.

As for second, we currently have no means to compel wars to end so lacking an alternative makes this the smartest response. This could provide room to reduce the ability to dodge decs in having another course of action. But that said even with no other changes it still provides reason for engaging.

Third is just hyperbol. I never suggested that it be so simple, and infact stated it should be comparable to destroying another structure to ensure parity.

The forth is an interesting concern, but allows a strategic play in determining whether to place close or far from the defender.

Seems interesting to me.

I personally could care less.'this character stays in NPC corp, and my alt is in an alliance that loves war.

Doesn't make war decs balanced.

When roaming, you pick a fight you know you can win. I don't think war decs should also be mechanically included to support that as well.
Also, war is supposed to be meaningful. In some cases it is, but in the vast majority of cases, it's only used to pick on the little guy and get free KMs.

Of course it is. I declare war on you with the intention of destroying your structure and stopping your resource gathering. You now have an option to stay in the war, or opt-out, by destroying a structure. If you succeed I am unable to attack you again. I am unable to force non-consensual PvP upon you because you have immunity.

I'll admit it is better than a PvP-flag, but only just. It provides you with a way to isolate yourself from the sandbox, and turn off the most risky form of PvP in highsec. This is why it will never happen, nor should it.

Wardecs are not there to promote PvP - they are there to allow it. Without wardecs, there would be no PvP of consequence in highsec. Suicide ganking is easily mitigated, and useless against structures (ok, I have suicide ganked laboratories, so let's say online structures). Wardecs are absolutely, 100% necessary to exist in some form and if you have a way to turn them off, even if that way involves shooting something, it provides near perfect safety in a game that was designed so you are never be 100% safe. So do you see yet why your idea is unworkable? Or do I need to rephrase the same reality for a tenth time?

We agree on this. The risk vs. reward balance of highsec is seriously out of whack, and has been for years. Interestingly, the decrease in player counts and the stagnation in nullsec correlates quite well with the increases in highsec safety and highsec income added by CCP to appease carebears and chase new subscribers. I understand the motive behind CCP's decisions, but all they have done is shown that indeed a competative sandbox game cannot work if you have a lucrative and safe zone, or all the veterans will just move there and exploit that space to make an income, asphyxiating the rest of the game. Let's hope CCP Seagull is not too late, and not too timid, to save the game from these poor decisions of the past.

The current mechanics allow for continual evasion as strategy for safety. This needs to be fixed, and is being addressed by the new structures. The rigs of the new structures will make players who use them unable to just pack up and jump corp like they do today. They will have to fight if they want to keep their structures. Bravo CCP! There will now be consequences for evasion.

As for corps that do not have structures, that bothers me less. Don't get me wrong, the dodge hole should be fixed, but corps without structures are pretty much NPC corps anyway, just benefiting from a lower tax rate and a shared hanger and name. The reward they are getting is not much more than what they would get in an NPC corp, so they should be a little safer than corps that are benefiting from in-space structures. Better would be some sort of "corp lite" so they could be immune from wardecs, can play with a social group, but not benefit from the rewards of being in a proper, competitive player corp.

As for the accusation of self-serving ideas, I apologize for making that. I cannot know what you do in game or your intentions for suggesting these changes. However, there are far too many players that do come to these forums, putting forth ideas to make the game "better" that just give them an advantage in the game. The worst of these offenders in my opinion, are those that propose increased safety for their ISK-making activities (i.e. the carebears). These "ideas" will have the predictable consequence of reducing targets and conflict, thus draining the lifeblood of this PvP sandbox, while simultaneously giving them more resources at no extra effort. These ideas are completely self-serving and not designed to make the game better, only their game easier. They need to be called out as when CCP listens to them, the game suffers.

Under no circumstances are we going to even discuss this as though you can shoot at them. You will not be able to, period. CCP has said that going forward, structures will involve the entosis mechanic.

And that means that you are suggesting that a ten minute entosis timer be allowed to dissolve a wardec.

That is unacceptable.