Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, it literally isolates a corporation from any aggressor who is unable to defend a structure from the combined effort of that corporation (and thus from the sandbox). Any corporation that can meet the N+1 threshold for the time it takes to win a beacon can make themselves immune from corporations smaller than themselves. That isn't a HFTU, or play better situation: it is just a "you are not large enough to win a single encounter against us so we are now immune to anything else you want to do by fiat" situation. That is terrible game design which leads to blobbing and stagnation, and what FozzieSov was trying to fix.

Ain't going to happen.

I believe you when you say are not deliberating targeting small aggressors with you proposal. Yet, that is exactly what this proposal does. I am completely convinced that safety will never be given as a reward by CCP for highsec corps showing up to defend their resource-generating stuff. Keeping your stuff should be all the incentive that is required and is more in keeping with where CCP has been taking this game lately.

Game mechanics that by decree prevent conflict are not "win-win" in a sandbox game. It is just yet another evasion mechanism that players will use to avoid actual PvP and generate resources safe from their competitors, making the game more tedious and boring for all concerned.

You should look elsewhere if you truly want to make wardecs more fun and meaningful for all sides as this proposal is still-born from the game-design/sandbox perspective. Immunity from attack as a reward is just not on the table.

Which is exactly why the dec mechanic doesn't work, as the best route to take in order to keep your stuff is to not play and/or avoid conflict.
The best method and most used method in wardecs is denial.
the aggressor will deny any counter-aggression presented by the defender by not undocking.
The defender will deny the aggressor any kills by not undocking.

How is not fight a good design?


Edit... Also, I would like to point out that many people believe (myself included, and likely you) believe that no player should play the game with the mentality of "keeping their stuff" but instead should take the approach of fight to keep or take out as much as you can before you lose your stuff.
This same mentality should apply to wardecs.



I would agree that any mechanic that prevents conflict is not good for a sandbox game; However, I will note that any mechanic to which aversion is the best strategy is also not good for a sandbox game. The only mechanic that falls into this category is the dec mechanic.

However, the structure based mechanic does NOT prevent conflict.
It incentivizes conflict in order to continue your dec, or end the dec.

Denying each other kills by not presenting yourself for kills isn't good for Eve.
However, denying the aggressor kills by willfully engaging for a chance to end the war, and getting kills in an attempt to retain your war... This is perfect for Eve.




I will agree that the idea of simply throwing a structure into the current dec mechanic is still-born.
There needs to be a complete rebuild of the dec mechanic around the structure in order to make it work.
You can argue that it's arbitrary, but if you wish to deny this change because of the arbitrary reliance on a structure, than you must continue that belief into all arbitrary aspects of Eve.
Structure based SOV, jump gates, POCOs, stations, soon to be Citadels, POSs, mobile structures, disruption bubbles, warp scrams and damps, and any other structure/module that is placed in game to arbitrarily allow other aspects of the game to exist and/or not be easily avoidable.
The aspect of player corporations in and of itself is an arbitrary mechanic to allow certain actions within Eve, to include NPC corps not allowing certain aspects.
As it sits now, the wardec itself is already an arbitrary mechanic, so crying about arbitrary changes to an arbitrary mechanic in a game filled with arbitrary mechanics is simply crying.

Now, as far as immunity, you're only as immune as the aggressor would allow you to be.
If they do not defend their structure from loss, they are allowing you to attain immunity.
If they aren't re-deccing you with another entity after you've won, they are allowing you to be immune.

This isn't like interceptors that allow you to be immune from bubbles without any player effort.
It isn't like recon cruisers that allow you to be immune to d-scan.
It's not like warp core stabs which can protect you from scrams.

The immunity gained from the mechanic is entirely based on the aggression taken by the players. It is in no way a benefit given, but is a reward earned.
If you cannot earn it, you cannot have it, and if you cannot deny it, you cannot stop it.


As it sits now, an aggressor in a wardec doesn't even have to undock and can still win the war simply because the defender cannot win the war.
Imagine if I could take you SOV territory just by saying I want to take your SOV, and putting a minuscule amount of isk towards doing so. This is a relevant representation of what the wardec mechanic allows.

I can attest to this because I've been on both sides of wardecs.
I've never lost a wardec that I started, nor even felt as if I had lost; and the only wardecs to which I've been the defender and felt as if I won were wardecs started by an individual that can only be explained as the worst player to exist in Eve ; But even then, the wardec did not end until he decided it did. Any other war to which an even mildly competent individual or group started never resulted in what myself nor other individuals would consider a win.

I would 1 man dec Marmite, CODE, and Pirate, to which even they would still have a marginal level of what can only be considered as fear, not because they are afraid of me, but because they're afraid of me catching that one pilot that wasn't paying attention, and they could do nothing about it because I will not meet them on their terms and can engage them whenever I want and they cannot stop me.
However, where those entities differ from others is that they have the benefit of intent.
They intend to be involved in wardecs, thus they have no structures, miners, mission runners, or any entities within corp/alliance that would be at risk of involuntary loss, to include a solo ship out on its own.
if all players in Eve followed this mantra, then there would be no point in ever wardeccing, as there wouldn't be anything to shoot at in HS unless you ganked.

Just because anyone can start a wardec and anyone can be a defender in a wardec doesn't mean that wardecs are fine.

Of course it did. Ameliorating the N+1 and minimum group size problems that existed under the previous sov system is literally goal #3 as outlined by CCP Fozzie on the devblog after making sov more "fun" and "easy to understand". Any changes to wardecs are not going to make participation by smaller groups in wars impossible.

Ok, I'll try one last time. Forget wardecs. Imagine you are teaching Game Theory 101 and you ask your class to design an incentive structure for a PvP game to induce players to keep fighting each other. One of your students comes to you with the idea to reward beating your opponent with an immunity to attack from them. Do you pass this student? Pretty much any other answer would be more likely to produce continued conflict, rather than this proposal that by its very definition limits future fighting.

This is why CCP will never award safety and immunity to attack as an inducement to defend. There are plenty of other ways one can imagine to encourage both the aggressor and defender to undock and engage in PvP if that is your goal (useful and valuable structures being an obvious one), ways that do not by arbitrary game mechanics completely prevent the PvP you are trying to promote.

This can't work in EVE unless you remove the "losses are meaningful" part of the system... One side will always want to cut their losses.

You can run and hide in some mode in battlefield.

Yes, but you're not immune from dieing. If if you're in the furthest corner of the map, someone with a jet will likely still mow you down..

Eve is a PvP sandbox game, not a PvE game as Daichi's signature reminds us: "The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." (Section 7.1, New Plilot FAQ) The game is not balanced around "pure PVE" nor is that even possible in a PvP game. If you want to play a pure PvE game from CCP, go play EVE: Gunjack. Otherwise, you need to accept that Eve Online is a PvP sandbox specifically designed so players, and especially corporations, are always vulnerable to each other.

PvE in this game is only there so you make yourself vulnerable to other PvP players in exchange for resources. The sooner you accept this fundamental fact of the design of the Eve sandbox, the easier time you will have understanding why CCP will never offer immunity from PvP as an inducement to defend your stuff.

CCP is not going to hand out immunity to PvP to corporations as a prize for just playing the intended PvP game in this PvP sandbox.

Let it go. There are plenty of other inducements that can be imagined to allow defenders to put pressure on the aggressors to undock that don't involve locking out PvP from a PvP game.

So true... It's almost as if being able to lose your wardec would make sense!




Lol... I love when you call me a liar and suggest that I care only of personal interests...
As if you haven't been caught losing (without me projecting to find it) and very obviously entertaining your self-interests.

See, you gotta understand where I'm coming from on this premise.

With a structure based mechanic (not a structure in the current mechanic) MY INTENT (I don't know about others) is to give everyone a reason to undock and fight.
I feel as if the wardec can be used as 2 fold.

1) Allow PVP in highsec without CONCORD intervention

2) INTRODUCE predominantly risk averse players to the fun of PVP, and allow the to see that losing a ship isn't always 'non-fun'.


If they're given an incentive that would entice them to fight, they may very well learn to fight.

It allows corps to become a stronger entity if they're willing to fight, while at the same time weeding out those entities (both deccers and defenders) that are unwilling to engage in direct combat.

See, if the defender wins the wardec, they may very well have ended the aggression of the deccer, and locking them out from deccing them again for a set amount of time, BUT it doesn't stop the deccer from pvp'ing them by either starting a new corp and/or ganking... HOWEVER, it has the added benefit of allowing the defender to know that THEY CAN WIN when it comes to pvp; Therefore, they may develop the longing for more pvp and begin to build their once carebear corp around the mentality pvp'ing. Whether that means wardeccing themselves, low roams once a week, gate camps in null, or even moving the entire corp out of HS.

Many carebears did not become this because it's what they enjoyed... They became that through interaction with other players, most likely through the use of a wardec, giving them the impression that Eve pvp isn't something that you can win until you're elite; thus they never make the effort to become 'elite' for a fear of all the loss leading up to that.


If you introduce them to pvp in a way that they feel is beneficial to them, they might come to enjoy it.


Now, it also has the added benefit of those corps that are already fully pvp capable to actually do something about the aggressor. Sure, they can fight them off with the current mechanic, but the odds are, they'll never be met with a situation in which to fight off the aggressor.
They will only show up when there's a target of opportunity, have massive amounts of intel through scouts simply because they themselves are safe in HS, and thus will not meet any defender aggression unless they feel they can win that fight.

Eve is supposed to be about taking risks.
However, no one is going to take the risks if there isn't anything to gain.
You likely wouldn't be getting wardecced if loot didn't drop and/or KMs weren't provided.
The defender already has no purpose for taking risks in a dec as in the vast majority of cases, aggression will be met with no response and/or have no effect on the war ending.

I know this because I was once that carebear.
I used to only join PVE focused corps and had quit corps due to prolonged wardecs.
However, after several years, I managed to get into the right corps that introduced me to pvp outside of HS, where winning was actually possible.
Now, I spend most of my time ratting and going out on roams with my alliance, deep in Nullsec.
I recently got a carrier KM, which was my first capital kill. Now I'm even more interested in pvp because I've seen what the results outside of a wardec can be.

I truly believe that if we change the wardec mechanic to be essentially an introduction into what PVP is like for the rest of Eve, we can get more players involved in PVP and in the game as a whole, thus increasing retention.
Sure, some players will have to give up their usage of the dec mechanic for KM farming, but I for one feel you should have to earn your KMs just like everyone else, as HS makes it all too easy.

Back on the premise of your question;
If players shoot have to shoot at each other in order to reach/ defend their objective, is this not a better outcome than everyone sitting around in stations?
Sure, the war might end and aggression not be allowed for a set amount of time, but that is all on how or if the two entities fight.

And this is really the core of the issue.

The claims that it's all about encouraging pvp are completely false. It's about the exact opposite. It's about reducing the risk of pvp.

I personally have no problem with suggesting changes to wardecs. I've tried to come up with an alternative to the current mechanics myself that still meets the existing purpose of wardecs while addressing the issues I can see in the system, but have failed.

However, proposing mechanics that provide a way to completely avoid conflict without even involving player-to-player interaction are just a straight nerf to risk; and are always proposed without a counter mechanic that also provides benefit to attackers. They are always about the concerns/issues/problems that defenders face. I hope CCP never change the wardec system to make it easier to avoid being shot at.