Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Just had a really dumb idea:

If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.

• If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
• If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
• If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
• Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.

I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there.

I like the general idea of it, but I think some kind of tug-of-war system would benefit wardecs to incentivize actually doing something rather than not playing for 2 days.

Each side gains influence on a War Meter if they destroy ships from the opposing corp, or destroy / reinforce structures from the opposing corp. Additionally the defenders gain points for being undocked and having POSs in space. The balance of the meter determines how fast the war timer ticks down to expiry. Something like 3-10 days depending on relative performance.

Additionally add 50-100% to the ISK price of starting a war, and pay out a % this extra amount to the side that "wins". If attackers can push their performance to 100% (10 days), they get the entirety of the extra fee back. If the defenders "win", they get not only a short, 3 day war, but also a chunk of ISK. If neither side does anything the ISK gets kept by NPCs.

Just because something pops into your head doesn't mean you actually have to post it.

If I posted everything I thought about, the entire forum would be swarmed by me demanding a coffee machine in my captain quarters.

I like one of the ideas in there. A prize for the defenders if they destroy more isk in ships than the attacker.

Additionally I also like the idea of a "wager" in there somewhere. Attackers place a wager, defenders get the chance to do the same which the conditions are invisible to the other party, just the amount they amount they have staked.

Hell no.

youre right, wagers make wars much closer to the definition you've posted...

I have a different proposal on how the war can work.
imho the war should allow the attacker to gain something not only cause the defenter to not be able to play, that is why people stay in HS, because they want to play when they want not when others allow them to.

(A) reasons, lets first take a look at what the war should be for:
1) to take down someones POCO or POS structures in HS
2) to force someone out of the system
3) to make it clear who is more powerfull

(B) invalid reasons, this is why the wars should not be used for:
1) to stop someone from playing or be able to play properly
2) harass someone simply because you are bored
3) to stop corporations from recruiting new players that will otherwise leave the game becase the didnt bond with any group

(C) counter attack, what the defender should be able to do:
1) end the war him self by actively countering the attacker

(D) my proposal for the new mechanic:
1)
a war would be declared by deploying a war declaration unit and aiming the unit against a corp/alliance. that would make the war valid in 24 hours in that system. the unit should not be scoopable but only self destructable (maybe even remotely) in case the attacker decides its time to end the war. also the unit shoud have a lifetime of something like 3 days (who needs 7 days to take down a tower? right?)
the unit should be fueled in order not to self destruct but with a small fuel hold to force the attacker to make his presence, if it runs out of fuel it will self destruct in 24 hours.
hitpoints like a medium POS and reinforce modes 1) when out of shields and 2) wehen out of armor (maybe variable influencing the lifetime? or consume fuel but with a small fuel hold to force the attacker to make his presence).

2)
corp could chose if wants to be imune to wars but would lose any rights to deploy or own structures.
- tho this does not eliminate the reasonless wars where people only camp the hubs

(E) lore:
concord has decided to stop overlooking hostile actions between capsuliers for bribes. how ever a new technology, the war declaration unit - WDU nickname WooDoo, has been developed to scramble distress signals from the attacked ship.

so this is what we have come up with. i would like to hear what you guys think. thx

so you are saying you are not wardecing someone to get content but simply to keep someone from having content? then he will simply find his content in a different game. Im sorry but this looks to me like being the bad kid who doesnt let other kids into "his" sandbox.



you can counter attack all you want but it still doesnt stop the attacker from killing your newbros or freighter the other day does it? and still alot of wars I have seen a scenarion where the attackers will hide or simply switch to theyre other toons and your newbros are still kept from playing. Yes some people are scared and that is why they dont leave HS untill they learn to fight so why force it on them?



well yes.. multi level invulnerability would stop the scenarion where you wait for the attacker to go offline. mobile depos are anoining enough with this... so why not this unit.

so the question is are you wardecking to gain something or just harras people and make them leave the game?

anyways thx for your responce

This just further encourages players not to log in and play witch is the man issue worth current wardecs

This will never happen. The carebear's nature is to be scared, so carebears will never actually take any action that could possibly cause them to risk their pixels. They find it far, far easier to ask for repeated nerfs to those who are their only real risk, rather than take the steps necessary to reduce their risk.