Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes, you wouldn't want to risk accidentally interacting with other players.



But it's quite easy to deter war decs, ESPECIALLY if you're a small corp being decced by a huge alliance, which is kind of the point. They're not actually pursuing you, they're deccing wide swaths of people and hanging out where their opponents are likely to show up of their own accord! Your strategy of leaving the corporations basically amounts to running away from someone who was never chasing you in the first place.

With something along the structure lines, the defender would be furthering player interaction in order to return to whatever it is they were doing.

I know you don't like the structure idea, and we will likely never agree on that.

However, you must understand that I am not trying to reduce wardecs or give defenders an easy out..
I would argue that the current mechanic of hiding until it's over IS the easy out, however, while many don't fight because they don't want to, there are those that don't fight because it's redundant.
Getting a single kill is enough for many entities to pay for the dec to continue, so by undocking in an attempt to fight back, they're actually presenting themselves with more likelihood of the dec continuing than if they just didn't undock.

What I'm wanting is to see wardecs encouraging combat.
Yes, the defenders bashing on a structure isn't PVP, however, it's up to the aggressor on whether it's a structure bash or a fight over a structure in which to bash.

If the intent of wadecs is to allow you to legally kill targets within HS, wouldn't it be an improvement if those targets are undocking?
If you're willing to fight another pvp fleet, then what would the problem be?
The targets are being brought to you, as opposed to you having to hunt them down and station camp...

My intent isn't to stifle wardecs, it's to make fighting more likely in wardecs.
Those that do not wish to fight in direct combat, be they aggressor or defender, will not have their way.
If the defender destroys the structure unimpeded by the aggressor, than that aggressor is showing they are player the game 'wrong' as you so put it, just as a defender who does not fight is playing the game 'wrong'.

Those two entities will be punished. The deccer will lose their dec, the defender would have the cost for the aggressor to dec them reduced week over week.
Those entities that DO fight might still lose, but they'll have a lot of fun in the process. Hell, even if the defender loses that week, the war may still end because they were able to do enough damage to the aggressor.
The aggressor could take a ton of losses, but still win thus having the cost the next week reduced, but the defending forces may be weaker due to the losses they incurred the week before.

The best part overall is that many risk averse players may come to enjoy themselves, win or lose, all because they had an incentive to undock. Thus more likely to actually leave HS at some point in time, if even for just a roam.

So, with a mechanic such as this, you and others like you that have claimed you're trying to make a better Eve and get players out of their comfort zone and into pvp, can actually claim that it is working.
Yeah, you might lose a few wardecs along they way, but that would also allow YOU to become a better player by knowing what you are weak against.
Yes, there are still those HS entities that will not fight at all. However, due to my proposal on the price to dec reducing week over week, you would be able to either force them to fight, force them to surrender, or force them to fold.

Yes, this mechanic would allow wardeccers to have an actual impact on the development of Eve and NO ONE would be able to claim that they're hindering the development (as they claim now) because there would be something withing the mechanic to which fighting back has a chance at them winning.
You involvement as a deccer with a mechanic built in this manner would mean you're helping to cultivate the PVP development of Eve.. You're helping to break the risk averse nature of many players by teaching them that being active with PVP as opposed to a target is entertaining and rewarding, win or lose.

It took me a LONG time to come to this realization... Unfortunately, it took me breaking away from HS and wardecs entirely to realize this.
Now, my main toon is back in HS and I'm contemplating starting my own wardecs.
However, as much as I enjoy blowing people up and enjoy wardeccing weak opponents, I STILL FEEL that it is broken regardless of who does it, myself included.
While I may enjoy wardeccing people, I would also like them to undock and fight me... Yes, i personally enjoy a good fight over a mackinaw blap.. Though, I will gladly take one if they're not docked.

i agree completely with you!
and as an add bonus 2 sided conflits would entail more ship and module loss, that would lead to a stronger economy,
and more isk for us ship builder! ;)

im throwing out an ide more here, may be bad one, if you think so, plz say, and if at all possible politly!

a salution to give the defender a way could end the war is to have the attack need deploy a wardec struture,
working simerly to custom office, having a shield, armor and hull, and a reinforce timer!
there are lot details i havent worked out here, maybi some sugestions?

that would give the defender a way out of the war

Whatever it is they were doing being NOT player interaction.

Even if a bunch of other things about it weren't totally unacceptable, that part alone would invalidate the suggestion.



I must understand nothing of the sort. You've claimed this before, and between your proven track record of dishonesty along with the fact that you have been told repeatedly that what you propose would in fact reduce wardecs, give defenders an easy out and make highsec much safer, the claim is absurd.

So I don't believe you.




"combat" meaning "fights that fit your specific, skewed definition of fights."

No. You do not get to dictate that to anyone. There are no good fights, there are no bad fights, there are just fights, and you want there to be less of them overall.

That is utterly contemptible.




See the above. Not only do I not believe you (since you have in the past outright stated that your intent is to nerf wars), but I also do not subscribe to you selfish definition of "fighting".




I already can. CCP themselves have told us outright that we improve retention among new players.

Oh, and by the way.

Having the illiterate NPC alt just simultaneously pop up with your exact idea is pretty transparent, even for NPC corp sock puppeting.

You really should try harder than that, because you'll both get perma bans from the forums if you get caught.

One side is anyway.

The rest of us watched CCP's Fanfest presentation, in which CCP Rise outright says that wars and ganking (in fact, killing people in highsec as a whole) are big positive drivers for new player retention.

They have stats. They have shown us stats. The stats condemn your position utterly.

Well i still reserve the rigth to disagree,
as you are you rigth to disagree whit me,
and i will never hold that agaist you! :)

I like how you think you get to disagree with facts.

My parents told me something a long time ago, that I found very poignant.

"All opinions are not equal, nor of equal merit."