Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I expect you to support your arguments with actual data.



Oh, god, you literally just threw out, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" Plenty of well-known "newbro" centric organizations have survived and thrived under these conditions. You're failing where Eve Uni, Brave Newbies, etc., have succeeded, and you figure this is the game's fault, and not the fault of incompetent leadership in your recruiting organization?




I like how you call out your own straw man. "You didn't state a volume, so I'll just put words in your mouth!" Small wonder your newbros are having a rough go of it with this kind of braintrust speaking on their behalf.

The ability to do so is fairly well documented
common knowledge. It is not dreadfully skill intensive, though it does require some capital to set up.

New players are welcome anywhere in Eve. Barring the handful of Rookie systems, however, there is no area of the game specifically delineated as being the "new player zone".




Did I need them? I'm pretty sure I didn't need them.



Ah, yes. The login numbers. You know damn near everyone with some personal pet peeve cites those numbers? Doesn't matter what the pet peeve is. Every one thinks their thing is THE thing.

Things responsible for PCU decline, according to the forums:

Wars make newbs sad
Wars are too easy to avoid
High sec ganking
High sec ganking nerfs
Fozziesov
Jump fatigue
Plex prices
OGB
OGB's impending demise
Odyssey Scanning
Holiday gifts that don't inclue remaps, geckos, or genolution implants
Frigates
T3Ds
RLML
Concord response time is too short
Concord response time is too long
The Door



Here's the thing about your little pet peeve: It has existed, with only slight variation, since the beginning of the game. So explain, if you would, the basis for your claim when the mechanic you're whinging about has existed through both Eve's (frankly unprecedented) growth, and the subsequent decline in numbers.

yes that is what I have wrote. are you even reading it?


you have just acknowledged that a war is keeping your players from doing what they would usualy want to do so what are you trying to pull here.
please stop lieing to me, what noobies. you have only 3 chars younget than 3 months in your corp and one has left allready, another one is an alt given it has joined the corp the same hour the char was created and the 3rd one is most likely and alt as well.

tell me how many recruits went thru your hands in the last 16 or so months? I have handled over 200 people, yes some of them clearly werent made for this game, some have adapted realy fast and are in null now, but most of them left because they were limited by wars that were actualy pointless and they cound have been good players by now but all they needed was a bit more time to prepare.

again.. if it was only me then I dont care I can fly by the WT and laugh in his face... but its about the people who are not able to do this. why? simply because they dont have this skills, they cant handle the controlls yet, they dont know how yet, they need a quiet place to leard if they want to. and sicne new chars cant use SISI there is no safe way to test it out. and for many people its simply not fun to lose stuff over and over, its frustrating for them to even be forced to borrow of receive ships from others.
the problem is the risk is forced on people and there is no way to get out of it but wait and if the wars stack then people dont want to wait a month for the risk to decrease to a level they can accept.



the cant do outlook is coming from the people that were realy not able to do because of the wars and quit the game. not me.
even the CSM thinks there is something wrong with the wardec system so why are you all turning againts me?

so we are all bad at this only you are golden.. I get it...



you are avoiding supporting your evidence with data and if you are presented with data you ignore them or bend them to your likeings

the data about how we are losing people to pointless wars? what do you expect? that I will give you APIs of all the corps I have recruited people for? are you mad or what?

so far I have provided equal or more data than you. thank you very much.
also so far I have got more **** done than you from what I can see.

I dont want to be rude guys but from what I can see I have far more experience with interacting with new players than you. and some of them simply dont want to go hide to null/station/different region for the money they have spent on the game.. all because of some nonsence random war with no goal.

also if you are all refering to the fact that most of the new players will stay because of the wars let me remind you that Im fighting special against these random wars where there is no goal. and attackers usualy stay docked of log off.. so not even the defender gets any content out of this.

also I would be interested to see these data and how many of these people were actualy in a corporation that was wardeced and how many were simply participating in a roam. because these are 2 different things.
roams will make your numbers go up, wars will make them go down.

That would suggest that leadership in that Corp doesn't know what it is doing.

Vic, take a step back here.

If you make it so that any entity can just end a war by blobbing a button, you completely remove the possibility for asymmetric war. Goonswarm would never have to face a wardec again. They could fly their freighters through highsec with impunity, even set up an XL citadel and not bother to fit weapons, because at the first opportunity they would just blob the beacon and end the war.

Basically, wardecs would be useless against any group stronger than you. This is why I suspect you are instinctually for it, because on a gut level you do not like the fact you can be harassed by a group smaller and weaker than yourself. Look what would happen:

Your corp decs Goonswarm to shoot their XL citadel in highsec -> Goonswarm stomps your beacon and is 100% safe.
Marmite decs your corp -> You stomp Marmite's beacon and are 100% safe.
Any random highsec corp decs another -> The defender hires Marmite and they end the war.

It would just make large low/null entities immune to wardecs, and give Marmite (or the equvalent top dog highsec mercenary) the power to dictate who can declare wars for everyone in highec. Giving safety as a reward for PvPing in this game is not a way to promote content and conflict.

A mechanic to ending wars by blobbing is a terrible idea, and I urge you to delete it from your head right now. If you want to make wardeccers put some skin in the game, then come up with some other way. Maybe they need to deploy a structure to declare a war that doesn't end it if destroyed, but costs something significant to deploy. Or maybe, you can remove wars entirely and just move corporations benefits into stations, but giving the ability to pursue wars only to the largest blob is not the solution.

Eh, this is a little bit of an exaggeration. There's still nothing stopping them from taking out freighters the old fashioned way.



I agree that encouraging blob tactics are bad, but at least you are willing to see part of the problem here; a new player corp, or a dedicated mining corp, or a incursion corp won't fight back, but neither will or do corps like, say, Rote Kapelle (small gang), Goonswarm (Sov Scale warfare), or various FW and other assorted PvP-ish corps. This is largely because there is not an effective way to fight in high sec when the aggressors will only take ganks, not fights. Last I checked, AFFIRMATIVE. was wardecced as well, and you can't get much more 'good guy mom and pop shop sov' than that, yet they don't appear to be taking to the fight to the deccers, largely because they have no means to, even though they love fighting. Fighting wardeccers in high sec is like being the criminals in Home Alone.

Target selection is a huge part of the game as you know, and is what gives EvE some flavor; it's not just the battle where decisions are made, but the set up is equally important and nuanced. Honestly if you are going to openly wardec an alliance that is 50x the size of your alliance, there should be some risk to the deccers, but as it is, there really isn't.

Both parties lose when the best solution to wardecs is avoidance.

Except almost no one but Minluv and their kindred spirits in CODE. shoot freighters in highsec. And Fozzie is about to make it require 20-30% more people to do so making it unlikely anyone will ever bother. Although maybe this recent activity of PL means they are planning to get into the business too.

But to the main point, I have no problem making wardeccers have to use something that leaves them vulnerable to counter-attack. Perhaps making a structure mandatory to declare more than 3 wars, or maybe tempt them with free locators or a watchlist replacement from an observation array. But I bristle when people propose that adding a way to absolutely, 100% stop conflict as a way to encourage PvP. It makes no sense to end a war because one side loses a single battle, at least if your goal is to promote and stimulate conflict in a PvP sandbox game. It's actually so counter-productive, I am not overly worried that CCP would ever implement it, but it is raised again and again by well-meaning people, frustrated that they cannot effectively counter wardeccers.

I am sorry, but if you show up with an overwhelming fleet on the doorstep of some highsec mercenaries they are not going to undock, just like pretty much anyone else in this game. You can call them cowardly, or abusing mechanics, or whatever you'd like, but everyone does this in every space when they think they cannot win a fight. Maybe there should be a 'button' you can ring in the form of something on the line you can explode of theirs, but tying the very existence of the war to it just means small groups would never be able to harry a stronger opponent, structures owned by the big boys would become uncontestable, and wardecs would become even less relevant than they are today. The small fry already just dodge the wardecs, and now the big boys would just blob their way out.

If you really think wardecs are broken, I suggest you look at a complete rework. But as Nevyn said, the new structures are about to give more meaning to the current mechanic and something to really fight over in highsec. Evasion, at least for corps with in-space assets, is no longer going to be an option, so there is something to fight for. Perhaps the problems you perceive with the mechanic will fix themselves.

How about, "If no kills are scored in the first 48 hours of the war, it is assumed the defenders refused to defend themselves and their corporation is immediately dissolved in surrender."

Makes as much sense.

No, you're not going to get a "win" by refusing to log in for two days.

Baiting him with a freighter comes to mind as one possibility. That said, I sincerely doubt that war aggressors who just won't come out to fight is an actual concern for you, instead of just a contrivance you're employing in an effort to make your position seem more reasonable.



The inability to defend is an entirely self-imposed restriction. You don't get to just opt out of normal game mechanics because they don't mesh with your personal playstyle. Your corporation has 60 members and the backing of an alliance with ten times that in total. This should be more than enough to give most high-sec wardec corps a licking.

And, on that note: It is your entire alliance that is under the war dec. Why are they not assisting you in this matter?



Again, if we're making up arbitrary rules, it makes just as much sense to say that if a defender is unable to score a kill in 2 entire days, it should just be assumed that they are surrendering, and their corporate assets should be liquidated and transferred to their victorious conquerors. In fact, it can be assumed, as well, if nobody scored any kills. The defenders must have logged out/left corp/remained docked/otherwise retreated.