Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have removed some post and those quoting it for the above reasons. I know this is bit of a hot button issue but please keep it civil.

Why isn't "because I want to shoot something" a reason?

You mean like defending a mechanic to which only one person can end, yet it's within a game that revolves around any situation being altered by any person, and exists within said sandbox?

For example, every single thing you can do in the market. You don't get to "counter" anything someone else does, you have to accept it and REACT by changing your behavior, or else you suffer for it.

Which is what carebears hate so much about non consensual PvP, because it means you can't just keep on farming your worthless lives away, it means that you'd actually have to play the game.

Actually, I can undercut your sales pricing.
I can find out where you produce items, destroy it if it's a POS, or wardec and station camp, even take the SOV territory you're producing in.
I can figure out your resource collection lines and destroy them.

I can do several different things in order to counter your market transactions.




I have no problem with non-consensual pvp.
However, it would appear that you seem to have a problem with the mechanic in which the defender consenting in the PVP would result in forcefully ending the war.

You can wardec me forcefully.. I should be able to win the war forcefully.
If you're afraid this is a "dec immunity" then it only goes to show your inability to fight against aggressive actions.

You don't even want to undock in order to defend your playstyle, yet expect others to bend to your will in order to continue their playstyle.
This is by definition hypocrisy at its finest.

That's exactly what I was talking about, you'd be REACTING and changing what you were doing before.

Which is what you think the defender should not have to do in a war. Hell, some of the disgusting bears in this thread think they should be able to farm their way out of a war, without having to react or change in any way at all.




You lie.

Pretty much anything you post is against non consensual PvP.




You can win the fight, obviously.

But you want winning a fight to equate to complete safety afterward, and that is not only wrong, it is never going to happen.

The agency in that decision belongs to the aggressor and no one else.



It's not hypocrisy of any kind. I just don't want my playstyle chained to a useless structure. I just don't want solo and small groups to be crippled by your unreasonable restrictions and barriers.

I think conflict should be encouraged and proliferated, not squelched and discouraged.

I too am against arbitrary objectives.
I don't think there should be standards on what the aggressor has to accomplish, as their accomplishments are meta.

Having said that, I am a proponent of the structure idea, though, I will say that if a better idea than a structure can be found, I'm for it as long as it makes fighting word doing.

As far as Kaarous' claim that it will kill small entity wardecs, well... Yes, and no.

Taken with my ideas on the deccer paying significantly more to outnumber their opponent, and my idea that each corp in an alliance can have wars separate from each other, while the alliance holds wars to which all corps can join, it would make small deccing corps more viable.

Here's my thoughts..
You take a 5 man corp and wardec a 10 man corp... Given that you likely know the capabilities of the defending corp, you should have no problems keeping them from destroying your structure.
There would be another corp within your alliance that has a wardec with 20 attackers and 30 defenders.
At the same time,'your alliance of 500 would have a Dec against a SOV alliance with 700 people in it.

this allows the corps and alliance to still retain a high number of wars, but keeping the numbers in each war fairly balanced.
This is to make the defender actually fighting more enticing.
Again, my idea was that giving these perks to the defender means they lose the ally mechanic.

I also had the idea that the structures are within dead space, thus only the players involved in the war can be near the structure.
... But, this idea is entirely optional and is intended to "counter-act" a relative allying situation where mutilple people wardec the same target and defend each other's structures. I'd rather the individual wars themselves not get convoluted with that stuff.
They'll still be able to gate and station camp Though....


I also had a surprisingly good idea on the vulnerability timers of the structure.
The structure is only vulnerable when there is a member of the aggressions corp online.
If the structure is engaged during that time, and the aggressors log off, the structure remains vulnerable as long as it is still being attacked, with a 15 minute aggression CD.. So, if the aggressor logs and you're shooting the structure, but for some reason stop shooting the structure for longer than 15 minutes, it becomes invulnerable until the aggressor logs back on.
This is essentially the same mechanics used for aggression timers when a player logs with an aggression timer.

So, this means you don't have to worry about losing the war when you're not online, unless it was being attacked before you logged off.

I agree wardecs are broken though, but I'll tell you why. Because player corps in highsec are meaningless. They're mostly just run by a bunch of kids that want social recognition by proxy of 'leadership'. ie, "look at me, I'm a great leader". Most of them are terrible leaders, and terrible at EVE. The dive into corp leadership as if it's just another 'guild' where everyone's invited, because we all know artificially inflated communities that have little to no resemblance to a community are the best way to create a cohesive unit, a team where everyone has a mutually beneficial albeit unique task or role to fulfil for the sake of fulfilling the team's goals.

Wardecs are broken because people don't know what they're doing. The only solution to that problem right now is for players to learn what they're doing. Although there are a variety of ways to make corporations in high sec more meaningful. With the understanding that any player owned corporation can be wardecced, the corp creation system needs to remind them that they are entering a realm of new possibilities, including getting wardecced. The 24 hour cooldown after quitting a corp during a wardec needs to be extended to a 24 hour cooldown before joining ANY AND ALL corporations. Make being part of a player-run corporation a more meaningful commitment, and wardecs will mean more than they do now. Then, after you've made corporations more of a commitment, reward them for seeing that commitment through. Game provides corporation with one free Citadel to call their own at 50 long term members, long term being a year or something that is actually long term. Or if that's likely to be exploitable or break the economy, something that acknowledges long-term committed corporation establishments.

Until that happens, "because I want to shoot at something" is literally the only reason for a wardec in high sec. The wardec system itself is not broken, it's just fine, with the exception of permadecs being far too easy to fund. I can agree with that and only that, and that's easy to fix - make decs incrementally more expensive per week or month of dec renewal. If you need more than a week of war to achieve your goals against a corporation in high sec, you are doing something wrong, or very very salty.

You also can't make the aggressing corp members fight their own war either.
There are many wardecs that go down to which the aggressor does not undock because the defender is well prepared.
In those cases the aggressor can still keep the wardec going, simply to annoy/slow down the defender, or in hopes to catch someone off guard.

The current mechanic is rarely used to actually engage in fights, but rather is used for ganks without concord response.
If the aggressor cannot pull off said ganks without a potential hostile response, they won't even attempt the gank; yet can still keep the war going even though they're unwilling to fight..
There are also those wars in which the defender intends to fight, so in response the aggressor drops the dec...

No one has to commit to the current mechanic. Therefore, in its current iteration, wardecs are more of a deterrent to PVP and player interaction than they are increasing them.

I can literally destroy everything the aggressor owns and it still has no pull on the war ending.
Not to mention, as I stated above, the aggressor doesn't even have to commit to their own war. This essentially means that even if I have the capability to overpower them, they will not engage any ship or fleet that would put them at risk, and instead wait to catch any unprepared ships.
This means that the defender's best options are don't play, quit Eve, drop corp, or heavily monitor local and stay aligned so you can warp out if any war targets come in.

The current mechanic favors ganks without CONCORD and avoidance over conflict.