Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Except for the part where you've cost them quite a lot of isk and they might not be too keen on continuing a war with you. Please don't try to pull this kind of obtusity on me, I've been around the wardec scene for quite some time now, as both a defender and aggressor. I've seen aggressors turn tail enough times to know how it works, thank you.

That was taken out of context.
I went on to say that they don't have to commit, which you also stated, which goes back to my point of wardecs being a deterrent to conflict as opposed to a conflict driver.

Out of context or not, it stands alone as an assertion you have repeatedly made in a variety of contexts, and the context does nothing to take away from what is meant here. Ironically, you also took what I said out of context, by only addressing the one method I suggested for a defender to deal with a wardec. You missed the part where I prefaced that suggestion with "there are many methods, one of which being..."

It is much easier for a defender in high sec to avoid a wardec right now than it is an aggressor, so this line of reasoning that an AGGRESSOR can avoid it is a very moot point as well.

So don't fight. There are plenty of carebear corps in high sec that have mastered the art of avoiding their aggressors and boring them into dropping the dec. You keep talking like I've postulated the only solution is to get out and PVP. Well, learning to evade players is also PVP. You are only fooling yourself with this rhetoric.

That being said, I was in one of those corps that got wardecced by a superior force, and chose to fight. I lost and learned a lot, and became not worth wardeccing as a result. That was a choice I made.

I acknowledge that there are wardec griefers in this game. They are the only ones deccing stuff for easy kills, and the moment you demonstrate an ability to kill them, I guarantee you they're gonna consider you not worth it. For the record, the only reason they exist as they are is because there are easy kills to be had, and once again, that comes back to a choice players make to be easy to kill. But I have assisted high sec mining corps against these kinds of players, and acknowledge they exist. I took on two of them in destroyers with my little Jaguar, and they were kinda bad at PVP themselves. As soon as I had one of them in structure, the other was warping off, despite the fact that their combined dps could have finished me off, and after I killed just one of their Catalysts, I never saw them again, and the corp I assisted is to this day wardec free.

Then read my standalone post a page or two back about making corps more meaningful entities if that's what you're trying to say. Although I don't think it is, I see you repeatedly shifting goalposts whenever you encounter a wall I put up against another of your bad arguments. You're right, wardecs are broken, but it's not the wardec system that needs fixing. That is merely a tool, like a spanner. The problem is, none of the bolts that spanner is meant to be used on are actually holding anything cohesive together, they're all just bolted into a wall as if they're on display, achieving nothing.

I agree with your premise here.
Those that are easy kills are what fuel the dec mechanic.

However, you're allowing those weak players to dictate the mechanics of the wardec.

There are those like yourself and myself that are willing to fight back.
However, I have yet to be in a situation where attempting to fight back had a positive outcome, not because I suck, but rather because the aggressor will not engage without knowing they are significantly more powerful.

Not to say that is a problem, but it becomes one when the defender has no means in which to take advantage of your unwillingness to fight.
What I mean by this is, if you don't undock, then after a while my only choice is to go home and go about the war exactly how you want it; me presenting ships for you to blow up.

Don't get me wrong.
I am the player that writes GF in local when you gank my ship even though there was no fight to be had.

I don't care that the Dev mechanic exists; I care that there's no point in fighting in the case of most wardecs. On either side...

I just want to see the mechanic changed in a way to which both sides will actually fight, as opposed to spending their time docked, and to the victor go the spoils. IE the war.

Side note, even if I make the dec mutual, the aggressor still doesn't have to undock, I still can't end the war, and the aggressor still has full functionality to drop the Dev without any punishment.

Easy to deal with. Return the favour. Stalemate them. Go find another target to shoot at, and let them ship spin in station while they wait for their friends. Then, when they get their friends, log off and give them nothing to shoot at. You're talking like these are the only people in the game. Well even if they are, showing them they won't get an engagement if the outcome is already determined will make them rethink how they go about getting their PVP. They might even learn to take risks!

Don't talk to me like the wardec mechanics are a failure because people won't fight if they don't outnumber you. That's a lot of places everywhere. Those PVP'ers are just another form of carebear - the risk aversion is their hallmark trait. You can also take advantage of that trait by fighting them on their terms, and winning, shattering their false sense of superiority. I've done it a few times, like above with those two destroyers. One destroyer should be enough to kill a Jaguar, even just one of the original T1s. If you bring two, and you still fail, you're doing something very very wrong.

But if this is the problem for you, then you should be addressing the nature of risk aversion throughout EVE as a whole. Wardec mechanics are fine.

Side note; I have said nothing about griefers in my posts.
I also have not tied griefing to wardecs.. It was others that spoke of griefers and the wardec being griefing.
The most I've said on that is CCP does not consider the wardec mechanic as griefing, therefore was not a factor on CCP's claimed that griefing hinders retention.

Back on point though.
Yes, players dictate the purpose for having a corp, therefore it is the players faults that corps are meaningless.

HOWEVER, virtually all corps were originally created to be meaningless, but overtime developed their own meaning.

This is not a problem.

However, there are likely many corps that would have become large entities and/or devoped meaning if they hadn't been wardecced and fell apart.
Now, if the Dev mechanic allowed them to essentially "win" thus forcfully ending the wardec in their favor, it may have allowed them to build a stronger bond to each other and the corp.

Thus, the wardec mechanic not only hinders conflict, but potentially also hinders the development of meaning for player corps.

Now, I will say that we can't be certain of my claim here without changing the mechanic first.
However, if the defender was given a means at which to win a war, i feel it's safe to assume that many corps would at least try to win, thus they wouldn't cold until they knew they couldn't win.


Last point, what does it hurt to try a new mechanic?
If it fails to drive conflict or decreases player interaction more than the current mechanic does, we could simply swap it back.

And then you can dec them and get them back if they are scared of you.

I guess you didn't understand what I meant.

Wardecs are intended to drive conflict.
We can ignore the semantics of whether it's intended to be purely non-consensual for this.


Given that wardecs are intended to drive conflict, they are more successful at deterring said conflict.
It doesn't matter what was going on before the Dec, as it isn't a factor.

You're seeing deter as if the definition is to stop or halt conflict, when deter means to discourage or prevent.

What was going on before the wardec has no effect on he mechanic itself "discouraging" conflict.