Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The response you will get is CCP's Falcon wall of text....

"Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.

Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.

True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.

The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.

EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.

Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.

That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.

Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience."

Which is a rather long winded way of saying 'we are terrified of upsetting vested interests' and 'are too scared to make any meaningful or intuitive change to the game' - for instance, how does it make any sense that if you run faction missions you are effectively banned from the opposing faction space - (something the game encourages you to do) - and yet if you have a -10 security status, well that's just fine, as long as you don't have any female exotic dancers in your hold?

What you won't get, is the CEO of Marmite pointing out - as he did on a recent podcast - that the current Wardec system is badly designed and the price for paying off CONCORD is too low - and they apparently have more than 100 wardecs currently running at present.... and good luck to them

The irony is the CCP recognise there is an issue and are apparently trying to encourage new players - with skill packets and such - because they have identified that there is a point, at around a certain skill level, that players drop out of the game. What they have failed to notice, is that this skill level roughly equates to the point when new players start to form corps with other new players, which then get wardeced and the only 'content' open to them is to sit in a station for a week, get constantly shot, or give up the game - a generalization I know - but one I suspect has a great deal of truth

And having left the game, players will be spammed with emails urging them to come back - but curiously no emails asking why they left... because this of course would show up CCP Falcon's views for the nonsense they are....

And before you say.... I'm not talking specifically about ganking, or griefing, or wardecs, PVP etc... I'm referring to things like battleships sitting outside academies challenging Ibis's to a dual, and the completely meaningless security status numbers, and why CCP appear hell bent on alienating people in High Sec at the expense of pandering to null-sec (sure perhaps Titans do need a re balance, but then so do custom houses, wardecs, NPC interaction, CONCORD, and numerous other things) ....

Still....

lol.. now you're just fishing for a counter-argument.

This is patently FALSE.
CODE ganks freighters in HS specifically for the rewards.
As you have stated, there are many reasons why someone would start a wardec including for the lulz.

CODE ganks these freighters for their own personal rewards.
lulz, loot pinata, Killmails, and whatever else.
They take risks in doing so. They can be decced by an entity to which they cannot handle. They could fail the gank and lose all their ships to CONCORD with no payout. Hell, they could potentially even end up getting dismantled by some white knight that managed to infiltrate their alliance and tear them apart from the inside.
They may even accidentally gank an alt of one of their own members, causing a falling out that destroys the alliance.

PVP situation presented with risks and rewards.

Any ship you undock in with the intent to pvp'ing is subject to risks vs rewards and you picked that ship based on this.
Ship balance does NOT dictate your selection (unless you're picking a ship that is knowingly OP), however, it does generally dictate the outcome of a fight.

You undock in a Golem for PVP in hopes to take out small fleets
The potential risk - You may get hot-dropped on and blapped
The potential Reward - You come across a cruiser fleet, to which you wipe off the map





Really?
I can win?
Please, tell me how!!!

Is it by presenting a threat, to which i get no response, and the wardec STILL lasts as long as the aggressor wishes?
Is it by baiting them out and destroying their fleet, yet the wardec STILL lasts as long as as they wish?
Is it by continuing to do what I enjoy doing and presenting them with several targets of opportunity, in which them engaging or not, STILL allows them to dictate the length of the war?
Is it through using the ally system, to which with aggressor will react by not undocking when a threat is present yet the war STILL lasts as long as they wish?
Do I win by dismantling my corp, quitting corp, surrendering, or quitting Eve, to which all but quitting Eve still allows the aggressor to wardec any other corps that I join?

Seriously... I'd like to know... Because my definition of winning is a desirable outcome.. Not in all cases, but in the vast majority, that positive outcome is the ending the wardec on my terms.
This is currently not possible with the wardec mechanics, therefore I, and many others that feel the same, cannot win.




You keep using lame excuses..
You bring up entosis as a defense to why a structure shouldn't happen, yet I never mentioned entosis... I mentioned bashing... Damage to destroy.

Hell, this is the first time you've mentioned structure bashing (despite that being the whole point of my suggestion), and go on to claim that it takes a week to bash a structure in HS.
Yet you ignore balance... Not all structures are created equal.
You can destroy a mobile tractor in seconds.
You can put a mobile depot into a 24hr(or whatever) reinforced mode in seconds.
You can destroy NPC structures in a couple minutes.

My point is, just because it takes however long to bash structure A doesn't mean it should take just as long to bash structure B.



Firstly, the aggressor has the vast majority of the power with current mechanics.
So, the playstyle YOU don't like is handicapped, and why would you want to give them equal opporunity?

Second, wars are only weak because there's no incentive to fight, on either side.. They're crap on current iteration...
My intent is to balance wars so that they're more fun, engaging, and both sides are provided with the ability to win and lose.

... And my suggestion gave plenty in return.. You just refuse to accept the suggestion because it's not heavily in your favor.



Thank you for proving my point with this statement.
You want prey, not combat..
You want to kill, not fight.
You want to do with me as you wish, and provide me with no means of stopping it.

Careful, your biased is showing.

And then there is this bullshit.



All wrong.

What I want is to be able to punish people who don't defend themselves properly. They made themselves prey, and all I want is to be able to take advantage of their bad decisions.

You want me not to be able to do that, you want the self imposed prey to be safe and secure without having to give a thought towards playing the game correctly.

It literally does not matter what motivations you want to ascribe to me, you're just using it as a smokescreen for your real purpose. You want bad, lazy, sloppy play to not be punished. You want there not to be consequences, in a game about player freedom. Which is why I say so often that carebears hate player freedom, because if other people have player freedom, they have the ability to punish bad players.

It's why you are here advocating to take player freedom away from people you don't like, because you don't like how they use their player freedom.

Luckily for you, no one gives a flying rat's ass whether you like it or not. In fact, that's one of the best things about EVE Online, that what people like you want doesn't matter.

That's EVE.

Just because you refuse to accept the reality of the game, does not change it.

If you want to avoid wars CCP has a system in place for that called NPC corps. There are lots of reasons why people get into wars all over eve from small indy corps to massive alliances, and there will be a lot more once the new citadels and other structures come out. Eve is a social game, if you cant defend yourself perhaps you can make friends with other players to help each other out, or hire a merc to resolve your issues. There is nothing stopping you from asking others for help or joining a better corp/alliance or from building up your wallet and assets to deal with future wars. so stop crying and talk to other people.

the changes i would like to see to the War Dec system is

If you kill a WT top dmg dealer should get a % of the ship hull value (this would make even nullsec alliance's want to declare war to get the benefits from killing 1000man fleets and capitals whilst ganking gets you nothing but the loot fairy's leftovers)

A combat ranking system for all corps/alliance's so you know how good they are by showing info. set the good merc's apart from the bad

Better information on the war report like
Reason for the war and what can end it. (set by attacker on declaring the war)
List 5 most recent kills from either side. (not limited to kills/losses from that 1 war).
Better access to locator agents. (for defender)
Mission agents in stations with an office that give better rewards while at war depending who you are against. (for defender)
A fee for dropping corp while at war. (that goes to the CEO of the enemy)

also allow us to play a game of poker with the targets who stay docked in stations, let us end the war by other means!
snakes and ladders for an end to a war would also be fun. just sayin :)

You comment stinks of hypocrisy.
You believe in player freedom, unless that player is a carebear, to which your freedom trumps theirs.
You believe in punishing sloppy, lazy, and/or "wrong" (because you apparently are the Dev that decides what's right and wrong in Eve), yet refuse to see how current wardec mechanics allow the the aggressor to be lazy (by not fighting when the odds aren't heavily in their favor), sloppy (because they will not or cannot take on a threat) , and/or "wrong" (because they're not fighting, they're killing) though CCP will argue against you and say their is no right or wrong way to play unless it breaks Eula.
You believe that PVP is not risk vs reward, yet you'll say that "reward" is based on individual goal, thus a kill can be a reward on its own.
You state that the defender has plenty of opportunities, yet blatantly state they should not be able to end the war because they didn't start it.
You claim the wardec system is player freedom, yet are not willing to give the defender a means of a positive out thus taking away their freedom in favor of your own.


You continue to state that allowing the defender to destroy a structure to end a war is essentially wardec immunity, yet fail to come to grasps with the fact that you are actually able to defend that structure; thus your intended targets will come to a centralized location where you can fight them.

... But, like I keep saying, it seems that you don't want to fight an enemy prepared for war, you don't want to defend something (thus not having a vested interest in the fight so you can dictate when, where, and how actions occur), you don't want your target to continue doing what they enjoy because it isn't what you enjoy, and you certainly don't want to be presented with a means to actually lose.

The very fact that you started the wardec goes to show everyone that you won the war. No one has to lose a ship, and they all know that you won simply because you slowed the preferred activities of your target if even by a little bit.

Again, the best option the defender has is to deny you kills. Sure, there are some wars in which the aggressor is actually willing to take some risks and fight against a hostile ship/fleet and both sides take losses, but those wars are so few and far between that they're muddled by the multitude of one sided wars in which the deccer will not fight in a situation they do not heavily control.

YOU are hindering player freedom by assuming you should be favored because you shoot other player ships.

You're basically telling the players of Eve, you want to preserve their freedom, until their freedoms get in the way of your goals.

It's almost like, when there's a conflict between what two people want, that whomever lives is the one who gets their way. It's almost as though the game intends for people to fight over competing goals.

Nah, that couldn't be it, CCP would never have two players act in competition with one another. EVE isn't about conflict or competition or anything like that.



You carebears really have no idea what game you're playing, do you?

Says who? I've said over and over again that you can try to kill me every bit as much as I can try to kill you. It's not like wardecs only let people shoot in one direction.




Almost like the game isn't deliberately disqualifying asymetrical warfare, huh?

Or are you trying to say that you should be immune to smaller groups?




And here, he tries to claim that, if the game allows it, no action is ever wrong.

He could not be more incorrect. This displays the pathological carebear need to have their bad gameplay recognized and subsidized by CCP. Deep down, they know they are playing the game wrong, but they can't admit this to themselves, so they want the devs to change reality for them so that there are no consequences. Because if there are no consequences, there are no wrong actions. (it's like a ****** up version of the bad guy from Incredibles. "If everyone is made to suck equally, then no one sucks after all! Yay!" )

Sorry bud, but the game is FILLED with wrong choices. Autopilot being a big example.

I've already told you that I reject your deliberately narrow definition of success.

Why on earth do you think that winning one fight entitles you to have the war drop outright? You get what you want means living, it means being the one left standing.




You do not have the right to be unimpeded and unchallenged in this game. If that is your goal, you will fail, and you should. Next time, try picking a goal that doesn't go against every principle of this game.

You actually have to work for it. It's not like it's somehow hard to mission under a wardec, I've done it before for weeks at a time. (It just requires more than alt tabbing back into the game every ten minutes, so carebears think it's impossible)




There you go with your bullshit, self serving definitions again.

"losing" on the attackers part does not equate to the war disappearing out of the blue.

Your whole problem is your attitude. "winning" does not mean the attacker goes away and you get to go back to carefree farming once again. Sorry, but unlike what you want, the attackers actually have some agency in their decision making.

"winning" in the strictest sense means you get to live another day. Or hour, or whatever.

Yeah. Just like how the defender doesn't have to undock if they don't want to.

Almost like it's fair, huh? Now, I know you think I should be severely handicapped just for having the temerity to be the aggressor in highsec, but that isn't how game balance works.




You just said it wasn't, and then gave an idea that would basically kill it. So forgive me if I don't believe the lip service you're spouting.




Yes, you are.




No, you want to replace it with a group version of the duel mechanic, and take smaller and solo wardec groups out behind the chemical shed and shoot them.




What they're "willing" to do does not matter. That's what non consensual PvP is in the first place.

You seem to think unwillingness or inability to fight back should make them immune, as opposed to the other way around.