Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well that's because you haven't thought about it all

There are plenty. But none that utterly break the mechanic like you want to have.

I have removed a post and those referring to it for the above reason.

First thought if low sec is "much more interesting anyway" why are you so vested in what happens in high sec? Why does it even matter to you?

Addressing the only nul sec has "I win" conditions you are so out of touch with any thing but your little corner of the game it is truly sad.
If I can out produce you and transport it to those who want it before you can and I am willing to sell it for what they want to pay then "I win" the war for that contract.
If I can and will produce and sell items for less than you can or will then "I win" the war in the markets of EvE.
And I can go on for pages with the same type of "player versus player" competitions that go on every day in high sec and ALL of them have a clearly defined "I win" associated with them. So I guess your retort will be that those do not count because they are not "PvP" and yet that would only prove how out of touch you are since most people on these forums consider any place and any activity that pits 2 or more players against each other as "PvP" and that includes the markets and contracts of EvE.

But I want to get back to the basic premise of the OP.
"Idea to improve. have wars have a specific target, SOV, PI offices. moons. Some achievable goal other than cause we want to. "
Many of your fellow war dec players like Daichi Yamoto have and continue to propose a structure (flag) based system as a way of making war decs more viable and to give the defenders some goal that would in some cases at least get them out of stations and into space to fight. So let's look at that through the lens of them being more "nerfs" to war decs.

You pay your fee to Concord they give you a structure you have to plant in space to be able to war dec a corp, how does this specific activity nerf your ability to war dec any corp you want to? Since Concord gives you the structure when you pay your fee how does this make it more costly for you the attackers?

Now let's add the idea that if the defenders can blow up that structure the war ends, again how does this nerf your ability to war dec someone? Because it allows them to end the war "before I am ready to end it" you might say, and my response is then you are some kind of total failure if you cannot or will not defend the structure in order to prolong your war dec. If that is the case the defenders definitely deserve to "win" and end the war dec simply because you are a failure.

But just like Daichi Yamato and many other pro war dec players I see the basic concept of structure based war decs as nothing but a positive for everyone involved.
When / If it gets the defenders out of the stations to fight to destroy it then both sides enjoy a good fight and the best side "wins". If that is the attackers then the war continues as long as they can defend the structure and are willing to pay the fees. If it is the defenders then the war ends and they go back to what they really want to do, say AFK mining.

If it does not get the defenders out of the stations to fight then how does it change the outcome of the war versus the current system? If they are not attacking your structure then you are free to station or gate camp till you decide to end the war, again how does this change anything versus the current system? and how does this "nerf" war decs?

Pretty much, except if "They quit EVE", the deccers lose, and CCP loses. The person who left finds other games or things to occupy their time with. And may or may never come back to EVE.

I come back here and there when CCP offers me a discount for a month. I see if anything has changed for the better where I can join a player corp without endless harassment to which there is no effective means of ending, and when I see nothing has improved on that front, and I can't join a high-sec player corp, so I lose that social aspect of the game, I ride out my time and end-sub.

That's less income for CCP, that's fewer players to interact with for everyone else.

I would bet that CCP has lost subscription numbers due to the current War Dec mechanic.

Again I would point out that I'm another case-in-point.

I like High-Sec mostly carebare activities. I even enjoy some degree of risk (it doesn't need to be entirely mitigated - the idea of forcing War Deccers to actually fight the wars they declare is a good one).

However, the one thing that most kept me engaged in the game, which was being in a decent sized player corp, was made largely impossible due to near constant War Decs. Doing High-sec activities in an NPC corp just isn't the same. When you tell a sizeable segment of the player base "You're not entitled to the social aspects of this game unless you agree to be targets of opportunity or continuously have to play the game in THIS way, OUR way", they're just going to do the one thing they CAN do, quit and go play other games. This helps nobody, particularly CCP.

Well said.

You just dissected an laid bare EXACTLY what these fearbears are all about. Like every bully they're cowards at heart. They don't want an actual fight, and if they're given one they cry like babies and run away.

I don't know mike's intention, but I personally hate when I undock with a combat fleet, to fight back, only to be met with 0 targets.
They foEver me into a war with them, so why am I not allowed to have a mechanic to force them to actually fight in the war they started, or lose their war entirely?

See, my problem isn't that I don't want to be wardecced.
My issue is that I get wardecced only so they can blow up my miners, mission runners, and haulers.

You force me into a war, fine.
You blow up all my unprepared/not paying attention members, that's fine.
You cannot or will not meet a hostile fleet engagement, then you risk me stopping the war by force.
If you actually do engage my hostile fleet and lose, you have proven to be the weaker entity, thus I can stop the war by force.
If you meet my hostile fleet and destroy us, the. You'll get a GF in local and your wardec continues.

How is this a problem?

The defender has an incentive to undock, while the aggressor knows exactly where they will be going.
To the victor goes the spoils.

if you don't want a fight that you may lose, then don't start a wardec, just as you shouldn't leave HS, shouldn't take SOV, or shouldn't do anything else in which losing is possible.

I find it odd that everyone denounces the risk aversion of carebears, but ignore how the wardec mechanic allows players to attain kills with as little risk as possible.

regardless of your intentions for wardeccing someone, it shouldn't mean that you should be able to lose that war.

In Eve, you can lose a venture that leads to a fight where you lose a battleship, which leads to a fight where you lose a fleet, which causes you to lose SOV or control over a WH/low sec system, which could lead to the falling apart of your alliance, which can lead to your corp falling apart, which could lead to the CEO taking all of the corp assets and running away to join Goons.

However, in being an aggressor to a wardec, your entity can lose everything they own and it won't matter because you cannot lose the war.

I realize that you can lose SOV and still come back later and take it back, but my proposed changes to wardecs fall in line with this.
You can lose a war and still come back and start a new one.
If you win the second time around, good for you. If you lose, maybe you'll find someone else to pick on.

Seriously, this is like SOV holders crying that they shouldn't be able to lose SOV because they were there first.
It's just dumb and counter-intuitive to everything that is Eve.
Anyone can lose anything, at any time, by anyone.
Wardecs need to fall in line.

Sure.

If you're going to have a single-server game, then it's imperative that you have relatively safe areas for players to PvE.

You could break EVE down into two servers. A free-for-all PvP server (no relatively safe space), and a PvE (PvP upon consent only) server, and guess which one the vast majority of players would go to.

They would go to the PvP upon consent only server.

Though neither server would be as thriving and dynamic as the combined server.

As it currently stands, the War Dec mechanic makes EVE Online a free-for-all PvP server with NO relatively safe space for PvE activities (if you also want to enjoy one of the things people go into MMOs for - the social aspect of the game - guilds/kinships/corporations )

This is poor game design for a single-server game where you want to attract the broadest player base as possible. And if you lose the sociopaths (who want the most risk-free victims possible), who cares, because you've attracted a much wider player base that will ultimately keep the game alive.

I Believe he is in agreement, but was only adding to your comment.




I am willing to accept that Eve revolves around pvp.
I'm also willing to accept that ther is NO safe space.

I believe that you should as well, if you don't already.
My only goal is is to provide the defender with a win through force option to the dec mechanic.

I'm only saying this because it's hard to tell if you're saying the mechanic needs provide an out by means of force, or if you're saying HS needs to be safer.

If you're saying HS needs to be safer, I don't think the suggestions that I've made will work out for you as it won't make them safer, only give aggressors a chance at losing a war.