Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Actually, there is no non-consensual PvP in Eve.

I mean, just look here: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Golden_Rules

That's the official Eve Wiki, and it states clearly: You consent to PvP when you click "undock".

Moreso. House cats are one of the few species that actively practices cruelty for their own amusement.

House cats are also adorable and lovely. I love kitties.

They are however relentlessly brutal when they want to be. My cat managed to depopulate a fairly large area of chipmunks in less than a year. I think he must be ecstatic with all this American wildlife.

@Kaarous the program is called Cat Watch 2014, there's a 2013 one too.

Yep, mine is currently asleep in her box on my desk*; she had a hard night judging by the remains of, what appears to have been, a squirrel she left on the doorstep this morning.

If your cat likes sitting on the keyboard or mouse pad this is worth a try*

Thank you for for stating the core of the problem so clearly.
What I would like to see is about a 2 months of the real PvP players in low and nul war deccing and killing the high sec war dec corps simply to see how they respond to an overwhelming force they have virtually no chance of defeating.



You ask an excellent question, unfortunately it is also a question that has no real answer.
The OP idea of a structure that can be defeated by shooting it or by some form of the entosis mechanic has possibility but there are problems to address.
The shooting it side heavily favors those who have characters with combat oriented skills which is uncommon for the Indy players that are often war decced.
The entosis side seems like it is the answer and yet it still heavily favors those with combat skills as it is easier for them to destroy those who wold attack the structure again due to their characters combat oriented skills.
Reinforcement timers etc in all forms give an unfair advantages to larger corps who are better able to schedule to have the right people online at the right point in time.
Without the reinforcement timers these structures become a game of time zones and that has obvious problems.

In all of the potential good / bad aspects of WD relative size of the attackers vs defenders is the biggest issue to overcome and the war dec crowd complains about it just as bitterly as the carebears they WD. If you need proof simply scan the war dec related threads for all the complaints about the current allies system that is available to the defenders only. No where in game or in these forums does the true motive of the WD crowd show through more clearly than it does in this specific issue. 100 man WD corp vs 10 man newbie corp is working as intended, it is fair and everything is right with the world. However that all comes to an end and everything becomes unfair when that 10 man corp hires allies and the fight becomes 100 attackers vs 150 defenders. Alas the average WD dec player is not able to see the double standard in this and as such they prove beyond doubt that their true motive is easy kills. Not true you WD players may assert then join me in calling for size limits.
You can only WD corps with the same member count or more members than you have.
If the attackers corp grows to be larger than the defenders then the war ends right then. This would only apply if the attackers were adding players, if this occurred due to defenders losing players then the WD would stay in place as it would be unfair to give defenders that much ability to end a dec.
Alliance member count on both sides would need to be factored into this as well but I am not sure how need to think on that more.
Neither side can hire mercs or allies.

Why in the hell did this thread go off on a cat rant???

Oh, and blood thirst isn't the same as a thirst for combat.


It also doesn't change the fact that wardec mechanics need to change.

According to some random NPC corp character that is neither capable of being the aggressor or the defender in a war.

oh, good catch... Is that an original argument or did you hear it somewhere?

I've been commenting on this thread for SEVERAL pages now, and you're just now getting to the NPC alt argument.

Congratulations on having made it this far without stooping to meaningless arguments...

This is typically a sign of your argument holding no merit, so you try to attack the person.

I bring it up now because all of your suggestions totally lack perspective.

For example you suggested completely removing the ally mechanic, which is completely absurd. Nobody who is involved in wars either as the aggressor or the defender would actually want that.

It's a convenient mechanic that's frequently used in highsec warfare. People like it. The only problem anyone has with it is that it's limited because of its totally one-sided and should probably be balanced.

Only with no perspective at all would think removing it would somehow benefit the war mechanics.

Every one of your suggestions has the same apparent lack of any kind of practical experience plastered all over it. At least the carebears motivated by a desire for wars to be impossible propose ideas that actually have some basis in their personal experience of the game. Yours is just a bunch of dumb crap that wouldn't benefit anyone, let alone the game as a whole.

If this isn't the face of a stone cold killer, I don't know what is http://i.imgur.com/qsTueec.jpg