Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I need to dock when local spikes and more WT enter system. It'd be too easy to get someone aggressed, and on top of the usual HS neutral logi fagotry now we'd have to deal with you escalating the conflict whilst preventing me from de-aggressing?

No.

If you don't want your target to dock up, get a good bump on him or grab one of those nifty microjumpfield generators.

Dude. You have 60 seconds to do something about it. You want that kill, you'll have to work for it.

I don't "need" to commit to a fight just because You want to blob. I have an exit and I take it - as any smart player would.

Not my fault you can't bump (or don't have a proper ship to do it with).
Didn't know about the MJF dysfunction - my bad. I only travel to HS to inject skillbooks, sorry bout that.

But yes indeed, when an engagement goes south one should be able to deagress and dock/jump the gate. It's not the prefered option, obviously; but at any point during a battle I reserve the right to reconsider my position. Perhaps it's time to bail? Perhaps it's time to *not* go siege green on this tower? Perhaps I need to pull some range. Perhaps it's best to reload my ancillary rep now? Perhaps I should bubble this gate to separate the pack? Perhaps I wanted to shoot you but now you lit a cyno and I feel like GTFO all of a sudden?

It doesn't always play out the way you want it. This is right and proper.

What you want, is an enclosed arena. What I want, is a sandbox. Stuff can happen, and I shall respond "on the fly" as events transpire.

You can call me risk averse all you want -- but all I hear is waaah waaaah I almost tricked this guy and blobbed him to oblivion, but he outsmarted me and I got no killmail to show for it WHAAAAAH

Is that Highsec PvP? You're a piece of work man. Can't bump. Can't cough up the DPS to kill a target in 60 sec. Won't fight without his buddies and/or neutral logi backing him up. Is butthurt about not getting a free kill, in highsec, on a target that hasn't shot you for over a minute already. Calls me risk averse? What's next? You want Concord to offline guns while on grid with a station?

"who's risk averse? The guy bringing more players and sure why not some logi?" YES. Bingo!

Just LOL man.

You want to live in Highsec, you have to live by the book. Follow the rules. If you're such a hotshot the rules don't apply to you, feel free to travel to those areas of space where people can shoot back. Nobody's forcing you to fight at a station either - that's your choice dude.

And remember ... you too can use (and abuse) the rules to your advantage! "a Team of players who plan ahead" ahahahaha

The rules apply to both. Both mercs and carebears sometimes deagress and dock up. At this point I don't even know which camp you're in; doesn't matter. Deaggressing is a tactical manoevre. Deal with it.

CCP are making citadels such that if you engage you cannot disengage and tether up again. Im assuming it applies to docking as well.

With a bit of luck they'll apply the same to npc stations.

Technical issue: the logi, despite probably being in the same fleet and chat channels, cannot know if the target is involved in a war. You can't prevent the use of neutral eyes either. It's just one of those highsec facts: you can't evict people from a system "just because" their presence or actions offend you.



More often than not, the rules of engagement don't work in your favour. Then again, the ability to do as you goddamn please comes with a price. Either way, one should always try to pick the battlefield, the setting, the surroundings himself. You don't want to fight on their terms- it always ends in shipwrecks and forumwhining.

At one point, early in my career, I found myself wardec'ed by Marmite and Sovereign Infinity. I dare say "myself" because the miners jumped ship on the second day, our CEO on the third day. I refused to drop corp -- mostly because I'm stubborn and too proud to cave in -- but I do remember thinking to myself "if Concord isn't here to protect me, I might as well live in bloody lowsec!!"

And so I went to lowsec. I didn't see any more wartargets for the duration of the war.

Had I known then what I know now, I would have stood a fighting chance. This was 30 million SP ago, however. What it all boils down to, is that nobody's forcing you to remain in highsec, and there is nothing preventing you from using the same mechanics. If there's anything broken about wardecs at all, it's the ease with which you can get away from one. People pay good money, like, one hundred million ISK, for a week's worth of premium PvP content with you. And instead, people don't log in or drop corp?



Here's what I propose: wardeccers pay for an ENGAGEMENT DURATION. For every member of team A on grid with a member of team B, the clock counts down to zero. If team B doesn't log on or never undocks, no wardec time is subtracted. When team B dissolves (nothing happens for over a month), the remainder of the engagement time is reimbursed.

The more people are involved (4x team A, 3x team B on grid for 5 minutes = 7x5 = a 35 minute engagement), the faster the clock runs down -- therefore, when team A recruits more members and has more frequent or numerous confrontations, the wardec ends sooner. On the other hand, when members from team B drop corp, there will be less and less numerous engagements and the wardec will last longer.

Finally, when none of team A take a fight for too long despite team B actively being in space, the remainder of the engagement duration is paid out to team B. This of course implies the wardeccer defines a contested region or constellation.

This would ensure:
- the wardeccer gets what he pays for.
- dropping corp will be frowned upon, as it makes the dec last longer for his buddies
- rolling the corp into a new brand will refund the wardeccer who can then dec again if he so chooses
- the defending party doesn't get stuck with the endless remainder of a wardec long forgotten
- the defender can actually WIN a conflict

In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong with the docking/aggression mechanics as they are today; but I've often seen people wiggle their way out of wardecs or -equally mind boggling- people declaring war against a random corp (even a nullsec corp LOOOOL) without even actively trying to hunt them. (did Pirat even know we lived in Curse??)

Your thoughts?

People who continually stay docked to avoid PvP are playing the wrong game. Eve is a PvP sandbox game purposely designed so you are always at risk to the other players when undocked. Hopefully CCP will make a new social construct like a social corp or a society mechanic for players who just want the social benefits of a corp but not the increased rewards (and thus risks) of a player corporation. I fully get that people want that possibility, but you need to understand that this game was designed as a competitive, single universe sandbox based on risk vs. reward. This is why CCP allows wardecs despite all the whining and complaining from the majority of the player base. In fact, they pretty much have to to prevent the game from completely stagnating and the economy collapsing. For now, a chat channel provides most of the social component of a corporation if you just want to play with friends.

Maybe wars can be made better, or even removed completely and replaced with something else (maybe based around structures?), but you are not intended to be safe by design. You do not have the option to opt-out of PvP, especially if you are earning rewards that affect the greater economy of New Eden that we are all part of. That is the central concept of Eve and is what enables the true gem of this game: the player-driven economy. If you just can't accept that, your time may be better spent on a game where other players are not allowed to grossly affect your game play without your consent.

Sorry but I have not been in high sec with in wars for some time before the new wardec revamp.

The war Dec system when I played an attacker simple attacked the defender. The defender could not get help.

I would like to see that the wardec system allows concord to turn a blind eye, and not attack but Still allow all the other factors stay in play. Players would be able to shoot at the aggressor as if they were suspect. This should allow players to be the white knight on the spot, keeping up the laws of Empire even if Concord does not. This would encourage targets and victims to diplo with other corps for defense adding to the social aspect of the game.

Attackers would be a little more cautious of their targets because it would so easily for them to become prey as well.

It wouldn't..
The structure would address the issue of perma-decs and/or issues with corps being decced despite their ability to defend competently if the system didn't allow the aggressor to dictate every fight.

IE, it allows them to end wars in which the aggressor is unwilling and/or incapable of actually fighting their chosen target.

As far as the new corps issue; The system would be flipped compared to how it is now.
Instead of protecting large entities with higher dec costs, it would protect smaller entities from large ones.

Basically, it would cost the aggressor more to outnumber their opponent.

Another point: When the agressor is paying Concord to look in another direction for a few weeks, why can't I pay Concord a little more so they stop the war immediatly ?

"CONCORD has declared this war invalid as it breaches one or more articles in the Yulai Convention. The war will be declared as being over after approximately 24 hours."

You get this message every time the war ends. Am I the only one that wants to head to the Concord office and kill who ever is in charge of checking the war decs ?

There is none in paying and the other side stays docked for a week either. It's even less gameplay

In fact, you can extend this to all ideas that allow players to get out of the dec through some advantage they have. People have suggested over the years being able to end (or avoid) a dec based on wealth, being too big, being too small, being able to bash a structure, choosing not to defend themselves, being unable to defend themselves, having high standing with some NPC, low account age, or just that they don't want to participate. Coincidently, people seem to favour ideas that would allow them to get out of wars: if they are part of a large PvP Corp they like the idea of structure bashing, or if they are a wealthy industrialist they like the idea of counter-bribing CONCORD. Of course, implementing any of these ideas would just push wars (unfairly) onto groups that can't meet the criteria (like in these examples small, PvE groups and poor new players). This is why these ideas will never be implemented - eveyone is suppose to be at risk to everyone else.

Wars fundamentally allow player groups to engage each other in highsec. In a open-world game like Eve that is going to mean you are attacked by groups you cannot beat either because they are too big and powerful, or too small and agile for you to force a fight. Nothing, short of making players immune to each other, will stop this reality and CCP is unlikely to do this. Players will just have to continue to deal with the fact that groups more powerful than themselves will attack them on occasion, as well as small, annoying harriers who have little to counter-attack, can both declare war on them just like Eve players have dealt with for the last dozen years. CCP is not going to give you a button to make yourself immune to these other groups.

Non-consensual PvP is a hallmark of this game. Wars can be tweaked to encourage more balance, or perhaps even replaced with some other mechanic to allow groups to fight in highsec, but the ability to lock your opponent out from even trying to attack your corporation's assets is not ever going to be in the cards.