Player Features and Ideas Discussion

, including new PvP'ers.

i agree the system is flipped. But honestly, how much does the extra cost of deccing a large entity deter an attacker? How many war deccers are happy to pay the extra cost because it gives them extra targets?

There is nothing stopping new players joining existing corps to learn from existing players (if its good enough for people who want to PvP, then its good enough for people who want to PvE). Something that happened more often before 2012 because if you started a new corp the moment you joined the game you quickly became lunch to the locals. That was not a bad thing, it encouraged new players to seek experienced help and learn the game.

[Ultra Bittervet]
Now new players start new corps but they dont get decced by other small/new corps who work in the local area because the dec cost and ally system pushed them out. Instead the blind are allowed to lead the blind and they all level up their ravens until they get bored and leave. No need to reach out and make actual friends except to make their alliance more costly to dec. But to hell with actual interaction between corps in an alliance.

This is apparently 40% of every player that joins the game.[/Ultra Bittervet]

More players stick around if they get shot at. We should be helping our new players get shot at.

There you go being all 'observant' again. I did not say EVE's PvP is only combat.

As ive said before, im more than aware what constitutes PvP. But that doesnt stop combat based PvP being EVE's simplest, purest and most defining form of PvP. EVE advertisements focus heavily on combat, the trailers focus heavily on combat, player made videos focus heavily on combat, the artwork focuses heavily on combat, the dev made events like the AT focus heavily on combat. It is by far the most defining form of PvP in the game.

(just for you katja: that does not mean other forms of PvP do not feature in these mediums, but im saying combat is by far the most common)

Even in your case study, you are still saying the most defining form of PvP is combat where contests are won by FUNDING COMBAT.

what you're going all drama-lama over and calling politics, is called the meta-game. its existence does not mean that more direct PvP should be even more restricted in hi-sec. If i wish to use pew pew to achieve my goals, why should i be shackled?

Have you so quickly forgotten that you quoted me? You are making this 'observant' thing into a endlessly rolling joke you know...

The flawed sentence that you misquoted and then went on a pseudo-intelligent rant over?

Yet you take full advantage of that system.

Listen, if you're going to throw out comments on how carebears and the high reward vs risk in HS is destroying the game, then why not protest from low or null?

If you're in such disagreement of the way the system is maintained, why support it by living in HS?



That is not at all the sole intent of wardecs.
The intent of wardecs is conflict resolution and driving conflict.
However, the current system does neither.

It promotes the avoidance of conflict by allowing the attackers to pick and choose when they fight, while giving the defenders no incentive to fight.

Even if I know I can beat you head to head, corp v corp, Why would I?
Why lose ships when I gain nothing in doing so, or in destroying your ships?
Besides, it's not like you're gonna undock and fight anyway.

I don't want wars to stop, I want wars to be impactful and meaningful.
If you wardec me, I want you to be forced to come out and fight me, as opposed to cowering in a station cause you don't wanna lose.

I want to hammer you into submission and force YOU to surrender.

I want a big red stamp over your war report that says LOSS.

I want a report that shows just how many times you engaged my corp in combat so it can show everyone else the you run and hide when things get tough.

I want to force you into flying low sec roams because you'd rather have a bad kill board than FAILURE stamped across all the wardecs you started and couldn't finish.

Give me a reason to fight and force the agressors to fight or else!

It's War... I've been in REAL war....
You can't simply hide in your tent and say "I'm not fighting today cause I don't want to lose."

I'm willing to bet that you'll see a lot more corps indulging the PVP requested by the aggressor, if you give them incentive and an opportunity to WIN.

You talk about risk vs reward like it only applies to carebears, yet you start a war and either never engage, because the enemy is ready to fight, or you wait until you find that one lone ship and gank it before anyone can help...

Sure, you can have your targets of opportunity, but since you insist on forcing me into a war, I want to force you out of your chicken coop and onto the playground so I can break your nose on the slide..

Give me the tools, as a defender, to give you a taste of your own medicine and smear your weakness across your war reports.
Then we'll see who's crying about the "safety" of HS.

When I make a war mutual, I want it to lock you into the wardec with me, free of charge, and force YOU to meet my surrender demands in order to be rid of the wardec. When you do surrender (which you will), I want Surrendered to be plastered across your war report in chicken feathers.



Give us the knife to spill the blood of the self-righteous onto the very ground in which they believe moves under their feet for them.


Please... I beg of you to deny any actions that would give the defender incentive and the tools to force defeat to the aggressor.
In denying such change, you're only confirming your intentions.

Here's something you need to get in your head, Joe.

Wars and ganking exist to pick off the sheep. They exist to visit loss on people who would otherwise not experience it, because CCP cannot manage to make PvE any real challenge or danger.

If you are genuine in wanting a fight, not just crying for punitive mechanics against people you don't like, there are plenty of ways for you to get one. But if you think you get what you want without stepping outside the little carebear comfort zone you've got for yourself, you're dead wrong.

Cool story bro.

What the hell did I just read? ^^^

Thanks for the info, I'll look into this.

It is fun to indulge on the sheep storm, but lets get to the point.

Wardec being a feature open to misuse has nothing to do with PvP and PvE discussion or what you like to do in EVE.

Wardec is a broken feature because it does not serve to the intended purpose, however flawed that purpose may be in your opinion. However, everything you discuss here in this parts of the forum turn into the false dicotomy of PvE and PvP.

Where there is no light, there is no shadow. Where there is no PvE, there is no PvP. Those are concepts of distinction to be made in the sense of what you are "versus" in a given task. Discussing the portion of PvE and PvP is the plain old categorical thinking we heard oh so much about. That is plain bull. There is no such oposition. And that does not relate to what is wrong about wardec system. Wardec system is so abused and flawed that I reactivate some accounts in the last week and I found out that the 2 corps I had CEOs in those accounts were wardeced. Not once, but twice, and those accounts were inactive for years, and the wardecs came months after the accounts were deactivated and no member of those corps were anywhere for any reason, because they were deactivated aswell. That has nothing to do with pve and pvp, that has to do with not thinking something through.

To honor the long lived reason that Sci Fi exists, since its inception to today's remakes and reboots, lets talk about real life sensitive issues using fictional races and places so we dont get sued.

There is something odd about the people. The Caldari uses a way of thinking that implies a "legal system" for truth and facts. Being "free society" based on meritocracy, the Caldari uses the deterministic ways of legislation to also argue and understand truth. For them, that which can be proved by circunstance, that which may be, that which is the most probable, then becomes truth. The Caldari also implies that truth and fact are somehow the same thing. Something is true and therefore a fact unless it can be proven wrong.

The Amarr, more to a teological monarquic structure, usually uses the logic that anything is truth simply because it has been so believed from a long time for traditional people. If no one cared or had the means to dispute the validity of an estabilished notion, then it has to be truth. Amarr shares with Caldari the inclination to assume truth and facts as being similar concepts, and also shares the idea that something remain valid while no one can replace it with something else.

The Gallente is revolutionary and all about freedoms. They imply that anyone is entitled to rights even if they personally dont deserve it, for there are people who does and if someone is not for each one, it is not for everyone. That makes gallenteans to think that there is somehow implicit in nature that a being is free and become restricted by systems of power and beliefs. That transpasses to their arguments as ideas of democracy and freedom as being something consequential, or similar, or linked. The Caldari takes some parts of that ideas in a hipocritical way, but the gallenteans get it in a naive way. Gallenteans really argue that people must have rights above the "circumstancial" ones.

Then those three discuss an issue, you can see clearly even without knowing them, to which ideal they belong, and if an Amarr argue like a Gallentean, you will see that there is a reason for that intrinsec in the education or traumatic events, but usually they never run much away of that.

Matari people are not a culture. They are a rag tag band of people's united by chance from the opression of one or another that thought either they could profit from that, had a divine duty, had a civic duty, or whatever, but the fact is that everyone else just keep busy with ideals and concepts that are far from reality. Matari people dont try to make things convey an idea, they make things that accomplish a task. Matari people had been listening to truths and facts all their lives, and understand that truth is just a way evil people have to doctrinate minds. Matari people knows that facts are just that which needs no explanation, and truth is only that which needs no defense. And they know that you can be wrong even if there is nothing else to be right.

On that contexts, discussions always get each one to talk about what they want to, and not what really is at hand.

That is pretty much why the concept of sandbox is everything. If there is restrictions of interaction, it is not sandbox. If there is mechanics to priviledge this or that group, it is not sandbox. And that is pretty much the only thing wrong with wardecs. They are just another measure "Amarr/Caldari" like to promote standards to the way people solve their problems in order to make them behave in a pre-ordered manner.

Wardec would not be necessary if changes were made to allow people to interact in a more open way. Could leave wars to be structured and conducted by the groups themselves. And yes, that should be done outside empire space. I also agree that the empire space itself should be smaller for that same reason. But the criminals, pvp, pve, fearful, raging, peaceful and all kinds of people just find a "free for all" kind of gameplay in hisec.

That summs the fact that hisec, lowsec and null were made for a reason, and wardecs, concord rules, mission organization and other features are just what undermine that very reason.

EVE had one too many changes aimed to please the wrong crowd. The crowd that wont be pleased by anything.