Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If you think that, you weren't paying attention.

That would detract from the potential for conflict and driving loss.

No, it's true in it's entirety. You yourself have endorsed this proposed shackling of player freedom saying that you only want it as a nerf to wars, which is what it would be.

The fact that you now choose to lie about it to try and disguise your repulsive motives is not relevant at all.

Yeah, because you posted in the thread.

Immediately going in to crying about the attacker is getting anything at all from upcoming mechanics, and claiming that they should be happy with a savage nerf instead. You'll say anything to get a nerf, we've already established that.

Dishonest to say the least.

And now we've moved right into the projection phase. Coming along nicely.



If only you applied that to yourself and others making selfish, dishonest suggestions.




No you aren't, you're here every week crying about how you think wars are broken because the defender is allowed to lose. (which was your opening argument in the last thread, so you can't lie and deny it)

Fixed that for you...

As I said, I'm going to remove myself from this thread and let it take its coarse.
Considering you have been just as involved in other threads as I have, I would advise you do the same and we'll let a new group of people debate over this...

Regardless of whether we agree or not, I think you and I have both already said enough to express our opinion; So it's best we just stay out of it for a while.. There will be more threads in the future for us to go at each other on.

In addition, the proposal assumes to know what the outcome will be, yet does nothing to address the underlying reasons that people run away from wardecs currently.

If it generates content, it does nothing but require miners, haulers and other PvE players to face against PvPers in a vulnerable entosis ship and no need for the attackers to use locator agents, just wait by the structure and kills will feed in.

How is a highsec mining Corp any better placed to shoot lasers at a structure than they are to shoot lasers at a ship now?

The net practical effect would be nothing, yet mechanically it's just one more nerf. Then because it doesn't work as hoped, the calls will come for just one more nerf. It never changes.

Then if Corps are already in a position to shoot at ships, there's no need for change, since the wardec system achieves the ability to shoot at ships.

Yes, not all defenders are helpless, but this proposal isn't really about them. This proposal is about the hopeless ones as a way to help them.

So what if we have to be on our toes during a wardec? If they can shoot at me, I can shoot at them. That's a win-win for Corps ready to pvp.

No, it empowers ONLY those who are willing and able to do structure fights. Everyone else, especially smaller groups and one man shows, it hamstrings.

And that is unacceptable. Asymmetrical warfare is intended to exist. One or two guys hiding, then picking off stragglers is a good thing, players engaged in PvE should have to be on their toes for longer than it takes to entosis a structure. We know CCP won't ever bother making PvE in highsec actually require genuine effort or entail any real risk, so that task falls to other players.

Before I get into this, I will say the entosis is a TERRIBLE idea.
If the structure mechanic is used, it should be based on a bash.

Having said that, the current war mechanic revolves around everyone (defenders and aggressors) sitting in stations.
While the mechanic may be all about allowing pew pew and allowing player aggression in HS, it fails to achieve this goal because it makes it too easy for the aggressor to avoid un-preferred conflict, while providing no incentive for the defender to engage in conflict.

This leads to a mechanic of aversion. The only time the aggressor undocks is when there's a target of opportunity to shoot at, and the only time the defender undocks is when they think they're safe.

It's to the point where players from both the aggressing and defending entities will get laughed at, shunned, and potentially even kicked from corp for dieing during a wardec because it's so easy to avoid conflict and/or pull off a successful kill on a target of opportunity without getting caught.

If a bashable structure was presented, it would present the defender with a reason to undock and fight. It also takes away the ability of the aggressor to simply sit in station until a situation is presented in which they can get an easy kill.

If the mechanic is all about increasing conflict in HS without CONCORD intervention, than the current mechanic is failing at this. As CCP stated, 70-80% of wardecs end with 0 losses.
Sure, you can argue that the 20-30% is successful enough, but how many of those kills during a wardec are a single kill worth less than 30mil? I don't consider those successful as a single HS gank can yield over 100 MILLION times the isk value and it doesn't take a week.

Now, I don't expect that every war with this mechanic will end with kills. I don't expect that every war will end with more than a single kill worth less than 30 mil.
However, if we can increase the amount of wars that end with at least one kill to 50% or more, than it's worth it.

The premise was made that wars should be about players shooting players and not players shooting structures.
However, if the war becomes about players shooting a structure, this is only because the aggressor was not willing and/or unable to defend the structure.
This is the same argument that is used to belittle carebear corps, in saying that they shouldn't have a corp if they can't defend themselves.
The same should be said for wardecs; If you're unable to defend yourself from counter-aggression, you shouldn't be allowed to have your wardec.

Don't worry though... There will always be those large carebear corps that you can wardec with a 5 man corp and still pick them off one at a time, because they will never fight, even if given an incentive.

However, the structure would help to separate the men from the boys on BOTH sides of the fence.
Those defending and aggressing entities that are willing to fight it out would help to weed out the carebear corps and the decbear corps.

However, I will say that it takes more than just a structure to do this. I had proposed an elaborate mechanic that makes all kinds of changes, even as far as removing the ally mechanic, as the structure itself doesn't simply fix decs, but is an idea in which to build the dec mechanic around.
Basically, we need a new mechanic; not just a structure in the current mechanic, as I agree that the structure alone puts too much imbalance in favor of the defender especially when you consider the ally mechanic.




I wouldn't expect a small entity or one man show to win every fight in low/null/WH. Hell, just last night a WH carrier hopped into our space with an interceptor to pull off a kill. To which we responded by popping the carrier.

Asymmetric warfare is fine, when you can pull it off, but that doesn't mean the mechanic should support the ease of being able to pull it off. Any other mechanic in Eve could potentially lead to a YOLO-faceroll on the aggressor if they can't pull it off perfectly.
This doesn't happen with the dec mechanic because it's too easy to avoid conflict in HS due to the safety of scouts, the ability to hide in un-bashable stations, and the inability of others to kill you without a gank; To which you're not undocked long enough, or in a ship slow enough to be able to establish an effective gank fast enough.

The argument has been made that HS is too safe to not allow wardecs. To this I agree, but I argue that HS is too safe to allow players to have wardecs that cannot be countered.

It only isolates defenders if aggressors are unable or unwilling to put in the effort to defend their playstyle. Like I say to other players who are unable or unwilling to defend their playstyle; too bad. HTFU. Adapt. Make friends. Etc.

I didnt come up with this mechanic deliberately to punish small deccers but when I realised they'd be nerfed more than others I didnt much care either. I dont think they need to be preserved in any special way. A direct contest between attackers and defenders that gives the chance for the defender to end the Dec early whilst at the same time putting them in the open for the aggressors is, by scipios definition, 'win win'.