Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I guess I didn't explain that very well.

As long as the deccer continues to pay the anchoring fee.
So basically, it's the same as it is now as far as prices go.
Currently, a wardec is as long as the deccer wants it to be, as long as they pay to extend each week.

A fee that should progressively increase week-after-week.

Perhaps doubling each week.

This is some BS.
Not a one man corp versus industrialists, but your claims that he is dominating is hogwash.
He is able to control them and force them into surrender because it's the only option they have.

That one man knows what he can and cannot fight, when he can and cannot fight.
He is able to dictate the outcome of the war, not because he's so much better, but because he doesn't have to fight.

He knows which characters are in your corp.
It takes him only a few minutes to figure out where you are, if he doesn't already know.
He knows when you're online.
He knows when you connect and disconnect.
He likely has a scout watching your every move, so he's not going to fall for a bait.
If you're out, he knows what ship you're in and what trumps it.
If you come at him to fight back, he will dock up.
The war will not end until he decides it ends.
Even if he doesn't get a single kill, he can still extend the war indefinitely.
Even if he has gotten popped 20 times and you 0, he still does not have to end the war.

My point is that a solo or 2000 man corp has no investment into the war, apart from the amount of isk you can earn in 1 hour.
This means they have nothing to fight for, thus they don't have to fight when the situation isn't heavily in their favor.

Hell, a one man corp can wardec a major alliance and have no problems dictating the fight.
Oh, what's this? A solo hauler? Pop him.. Oh wait.. I see that my scout account shows 10 members of his alliance coming. Time to bail.. Or, lucky me! I just found a solo missioning Rattlesnake and no one else is within range or online... Easy killz..

There are 4 options the defending corp has.
- Surrender
- Drop corp/roll corp
- Don't log in for the duration
- Quit Eve

None of which are a win, so it becomes a game of attrition. If the defender can manage not to die, then the attacker will get bored and move on...

How in the hell can you consider this good game design?

CCP - "Hey guys!!! Check this out... We're introducing a new game mechanic we call 'Daily deaths' in which all players will get popped by NPCs once a day, at a random time!!! We know this mechanic will totally help our retention numbers!! Also, these NPCs will have their own KB and are addicted to putting as many kills up as they can; Therefore, the more of you they kill, the more often they will kill!!! Good luck!!"
/end of Eve.

Did that sound ridiculous?
If you say yes - This is very similar to the war dec mechanics
If you say no - I wish to know; If you turn your head, do you hear a rattling sound, or does the wind from turning cause both your ears to tickle? Cause there's either something loose in there, or nothing in there at all.

I'm certainly not calling for a war off function.

Now, you state that you consider anything that drives PvP as good game design.
However, as I stated, the war dec mechanic, in it's current form, is a deterrent for pvp.
Both the deccer and the defender spend most of their time docked, unless the deccer is able to swiftly pull off a kill of any unsuspecting target.
On top of that, PvP is not the only thing hindered, as the dec mechanic goes as far as suggesting that simply not playing is the best strategy, as attrition of kills is the only successful route.


Now, if the dec mechanic revolved around something such as a structure, you essentially incentivize both entities to actively engage in PvP.
Sure, there will always be those corps that will never fight.
However, I've been in and out of, and decced many corps that wanted to fight back, but were met with no pvp, as again, the deccer doesn't need to fight if the situation doesn't suit them.

So, I'm not trying to make a suggestion that deters pvp or ruins the game in any way.

I'm actually trying to suggest option that would potentially increase and incentivize pvp, while also making it more fun and engaging for both parties...
You can argue I'm making it less fun for the deccer, but in the vast majority of cases, their definition of fun is popping defenseless ships and running when a threat arises.

I also willing to bet that if a change like what I've suggested is made, you will see losses go up, retention go up, and less carebear tears over losses, as they will have actively been engaged in the fight, as opposed to being a target.



Here's a compromise, would you at least be willing to test a new system (on the live server obviously)?
What would it hurt? Someone loses a ship?
Push CCP to test a mechanic similar to what I've suggested.
If the system is failing after 3-6 months, revert back to the current system..

I mean, if there wasn't a problem with the mechanic, you wouldn't see these threads popping up all the time.
You can argue that it's just tears over loss, but they can also argue that you are biased to the current mechanics because they favor you, and allow you to dictate the war.

So, why shouldn't we try something new?
Worse case scenario, some deccers lose some ships and throw a temper tantrum... Hmm.. That sounds familiar..

Incorrect.

It is an enabler for PvP, it's merely that the existence of such a thing is a deterrent for some people, typically people who think they should get to play the game wrong.

The mechanic is not broken just because some people have bad attitudes.

Like I said above, wars are a deterrent for the kind of "player" who thinks they have any right at all to be safe, or thinks they have any right at all to make a hugely unbalanced "industrial" corp.

But people playing the game wrong does not reflect on any mechanic.




I don't think you understand.

Anything that gives the defender an out is unacceptable for a number of reasons. Firstly, they're not the ones paying for it, and only the party paying the cost should have agency in that decision. Secondly, as mentioned before, any method to end a wardec before the full week is up makes structures, in particular the new ones, wholly invincible, and that will never be allowed to happen.

Now, if you actually want to involve structures, you need to tie incentives into the structures, not the existence of the war itself. My past suggestions have been to create a starbase module, only one of which can exist in a constellation, that improves mission income for the owning corp. That gives people something to fight over.

Bull. Ask CCP that direct question. Go ahead. They'll smack you down faster than the punkasses who can't take REAL consentual PvP and so defend the current War Dec mechanic.





That's an incredibly ignorant statement. It's utterly BAD game design that pushes PvP on those who aren't interested in PvPing and so are not equipped to PvP as they would say in a limited activity game (like a WoW PvP server, where you expect to PvP once you leave the safe zones and there is only ONE real activity in the game - combat - having very few 'safe' zones. )

Unless CCP wants to get rid of the many other activities that players can engage in so that they are forced down a single path of engaging in PvP combat (industrialists do engage in a type of PvP), then it's utterly bad game design to push non-consensual PvP on players, particularly wherein the non-consenting players are almost always going to be the victim (the losing side) of the War Dec.

If and where there's not enough forced PvP in this game for you then you are free to go to the many other games where PvP is the ONLY game in town and you'll be forced to actually engage in manly honorable fights against those who are equipped to show you what a real fight is all about.

You know it. And I'd bet you ISK to donuts that your assessment is the main 'fun' that most of those who are defending the existing system find in it. They're not interested in a real fair challenging and honorable PvP. They're dishonorable people at heart.



I think the person you're arguing with has more than demonstrated the type of player (and person) they are.

You're trying to reason with a person whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. He doesn't want real PvP fights. He wants to pad his kill mails at any cost to others, and/or force himself on others, and/or actually cause grief, anger, and frustration in others.

Risk vs reward applies solely to activities that generate assets into the game world. Meaning, PvE and only PvE is subject to risk vs reward.

PvP, on the other hand, is a meta activity. My risk and reward are both contingent on the actions of other players, and the loot fairy.




I can lose, you can shoot me just as easily as I can shoot you. (nothing stops you from winning except your own cowardice)

What you don't get, however, is an instant win button that invalidates the very mechanic that is being used, and gives you a level of safety that is 100% unintended for a player corp.

That is unreasonable, unbalanced, and it will never happen. The simple fact of the matter is that player corps = wars. That is an intended fact of life in highsec. If you don't want wars, you do not belong in a player corp, at all.




No. I'm saying that is unacceptable to handcuff a functioning mechanic to a structure. Unlike the carebear, who is benefitting from his structure which therefore should subject it to risk, you just want to make the very existence of my mechanic contingent on something that I otherwise have no use for.

You're trying to handcuff player freedom, to tie people down because you don't like their playstle, and that is always unacceptable.




That is something to fight over. That's actually risk vs reward. If the mission running corp wants that reward, they have to risk something for it, make themselves a target in exchange for such a big benefit.




That's what war is. Removing CONCORD between two groups, for a fee.

It's up to you whether you're an easy target. If you fail to play the game correctly, you can and should face consequences.

Stop trying to excuse bad play and ****** attitudes. Those are supposed to be punished.

That defeats the purpose of an MMO. The whole playing with others part is kind of a fundamental part of the game.

Also does this mean you think (despite CCPs stating the opposite) that new players in player corps are retained in the game at a higher rate than those that are in NPC corps.

This guys just salty he might loose the ability to pub stomp newbies. Hes not interested in discussing changes because he doesn't know what its like to be on the other side of the fence.

Defense in War is pointless. If we fleet up for a fight the aggressor docks. If you don't they get to pick and choose choice kills and run before any real heat comes in.

Simply put Defense has no way to win and can permanently be war decked without reason. I don't accept "just cause we want to kill things" as a premise for war.

Now yes Offence pays for the war but defense has 0 win chance. This doesn't seem balanced to me? especially in ccps new found attacks on logistics to help balance engagements. Would seem fitting to add win conditions for both sides this would match the recent actions.

So now you're just full of crap and you should know, as well as anyone, that CCP WOULD NOT support this claim.
You undock in a frig to PVP.. You're taking a risk with less EHP for increased mobility in hopes for a positive outcome.
Risk vs reward in a PvP scenario.

To add to that, CCP states that all activities in Eve revolve around pvp. Even if not directly engaging another player in combat, you are competing with them.

Also, pvp is contingent on YOUR actions as well as the actions of others through direct conflict.
You are risking your ship with the hopes of being rewarded with the kill of my ship and/or potential loot.
How is that not risks vs reward?

I'm going to break this into 3 parts

1) You CANNOT lose.. You can lose a ship because I shoot back, but we both know you're not going to engage a target that would be a challenge.. You're going to shoot the venture, the PVE fitted Raven, the Hauler that was dumb enough to come into Jita.
You're not going to engage the Marauder fleet, because you'll take significant losses.

2) Structure bashing is far from a "win button". It's risking your fleet for the incentivized goal of potentially ending a wardec early.
I don't see why this is a problem for you.... The targets you intend to kill are going to a single place off of gates and station, to which you'd be able to pew pew likely a lot more often than you can pew pew during a dec now..
Or is it that you don't want a fight, only targets?

3) This is neither unreasonable nor unbalanced. It's actually more balance, but you just don't want it cause it takes some of your power away. I'm willing to accept wardecs from being in a player corp... What I'm not willing to accept is that those corps that are not actively creating wardecs are targets for those that do. In every situation in Eve, I have the means to counter your aggression to both hurt your intentions and help mine.
When it comes to war decs, my best option is to not play and deny you kills.


I'm not handcuffing player freedom, I'm balance the system so that ALL players have equal opportunity of said player freedom.
I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings that your freedom is not longer more important than the freedom of others.

Mining in a Hulk benefits me.. Missioning in a shiny boat benefits me. All of which are subject to destruction by you, in the event of a wardec. Adding a structure provides me more benefit, but gives me more this to which are subject to destruction, and to go further, cannot be simply docked up.

This is a simple bait a switch... I do it to my dogs all the time.. I tease them with a treat to get them outside.
They don't want to go outside, but the treat distracts them into doing what I desire.

You're dangling a treat in front of a carebear's face in hopes to distract him while you go about continuing to have your way with them... On top of that, you are then going to destroy the treat.
What can they do to counteract this? Well, based on your comments, sit back and take it whilst keeping their mouths shut..




You'd think a POS was worth fighting for.. However, many entities will take them down before a war, or not defend them during the war. Your point is invalidated by that alone.



I marked the important part of your statement here.
This can go both ways.

It's up to you on how easily your structure is destroyed, if you fail to play the game correctly, you can and should face the consequences of losing the war and the dec dropping.

Soo... Stop trying to excuse the bad play and ****** attitudes that should be punished.

It seems to me that this comment applies more to the aggressor than it does the defender with the current wardec mechanics.

Have you recently started a war in which your intended target presented an unexpected threat?

Well that's ok.. extent the wardec indefinitely and wait to catch one of them unprepared.. After all, you don't even have to undock if you can't win...

So.. it's totally acceptable that deccers pull this kind of crap, but it's completely unfair if the defender can counteract? Sounds like hypocrisy to me...