EVE General Discussion

So we just continue with false numbers on who actually is engaged in the game. - i means that the alternative.

The numbers are what they are they relate to how many players logged in regardless of if most of the players have 2 or more concurrently logged in.

Eve is a complex game because the players are in total control of how they use the mechanics, A mega corp is free to wardec every other corp in the game for example, the only way to combat this is not just about changing the mechanics, It can also be about people grouping together and defeating them.

I believe there is a feature where another corp can legally join another corps war, Can I ask why people are not grouping together and trying to defeat this? Why arent people exploiting the mechanic I just mentioned.

This is why I like Eve, You can play the game in many different ways IF you choose to. Go ahead and suggest your changes to the mechanics, at the same time I think someone should look at rallying a blue coalition to fight the main war deccers.

You'll find it is all of our problem. If more people leave things will change and Eve becomes less appealing to the people that stay. I'm not sure what we will do when there's no one else left to wardec, There may not be anyone left to say HTFU to, will it be 10,000 hard asses left in all of Eve who just stick to their corner of the universe?

I believe the goal here should be to backpedal on the "bullsht mechanics" - however smart they may seem.

For example, playing station games may sound like a real smart move for l33t players with a firm grasp on the rules of the game, but you wind up with people too afraid to even consider fighting at stations because (a) the target will get away, (b) you're aggressed so the real question is: what will UNDOCK? Ergo, whenever someone aggresses at a station, it's usually a bad omen.

As long as wardec'ing entities just sit outside a station, they're not going to get fights is what I'm getting at-- and while this may be fine for them, it's also one of the reasons "casuals" won't even try to fight.

Another example of a bullsht mechanic, is dropping corp and creating a new one or staying NPC for a week. While it's technically valid and correct, it's also bad: you don't wardec someone without assets because you know your money's wasted.

I feel that, somewhere along the way, both sides have become exceedingly good at either completely crushing the opposition, or dodging out. "adapt or die" works bothways you see.

Perhaps it's not so much the mechanics that need changing, but rather the way wardec corps operate. If current methods aren't leading to satisfactory results, then perhaps a small corp flying with a whole lot less faction mods and friends may do the trick? Looking "engagable" is important for getting fights. Price isn't too prohibitive either.

I'm sure there's a reason why highsec corps operate the way they do, yet several years down the line one would think you could assess what this mode of operation has wrought?

This is a good point. Even if CCP rolled back the watchlist change the idea that the large war dec corporations/alliances would break up is probably wrong. They might get smaller, but I doubt they'd completely break. It would take quite awhile for things to "go back to how they were". This could very well be a case of the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in.

The perceived "problem" is not the existence of wardecs nor the wrecks.

The problem, if I may be so bold, is that some guys don't enjoy it. I live for PvP. Sometimes (but not often) I even die for PvP. Highsec corps, however do not. And when they do, they're probably the ones doing the dec'ing.

I don't mean to force anything upon anyone but I can't help but wonder ... wouldn't it be great if fights would happen in highsec too? I don't know why many corps don't want to fight. It's an enigma; it's my blind spot; I just can't see it even though I sense it's so close it'd bite me. To me, shooting people left and right IS fun, and quite frankly it's why we have all these ships in game, yes?

What I'd like to see, is people using these assets to blow each other to smitherines, rather than drop corp, throw their hands in the air and be like "Nope! We can't fight this- they're too stronk" I don't approach the matter from an ISK perspective -- I try to look at it from a "things are happening" angle, as opposed to "everyone is safe -- the game is boring -- let's go play whist instead". Sure ships cost ISK but not as much as you think.

This risk averse nature is something both victims and wardeccers are guilty of; once upon a time we did indeed form up in T1, meta 4 battlecruisers because we were too scrubby to fly anything else... and do you know what these badazz mercs did? They docked up three days in a row, then dropped the wardec.

COME ON! Wasn't this why you wardec'ed us in the first place, I have to wonder? Didn't you want to fight?

Leaving corp should always be an option for those who are really facing oppressive odds; yet from what I've experienced, the Fear of the Holy Killboard has been counterproductive for both aggressor and defender alike. They talk about war but they don't really want to fight would be my assessment. THAT, is where the problem lies imho: too much emphasis on KB Green, not enough on actual engagements. I'd rather not see people drop corp; then again, I'd rather not see a bunch of neutral logi undock either.

I believe some corps could really benefit from guidance these merc corps could provide -- guest FC'ing, help with doctrines and what not -- but that's a little tricky if they're all on the same side. What is left, is simply not fun anymore. This is what we need to bring back. Even if that means smaller PvP corps rising to challenge the larger ones.

And this brings me to the small matter of TRUST. As a starting corp, not well-versed in the matters of PvP ..... who can you trust? Where is your guarantee the mercs you hire will be worth the money? Or will that just show weakness and invite even more "unwanted attention"? Customer satisfaction is a precious commodity and it may be hard to separate the real hired guns from the moneygrabbers, the griefers.

I do not think the game mechanics are at fault here. There may be a market for small merc corps willing to defend the stuff you pay them quite handsomely for. There are no doubt things those looking for fights can do to ensure they don't scare their intended targets off -- thru overly assertive smack, overwhelming numbers or reputation.

Taking the FuN out of the fight may be the real problem here. Or am I completely missing the mark? (it's been some time since I last visited highsec- but I still remember some of it)

What false numbers are you talking about?

That's how a sandbox game is suppose to work. Players make up the reasons to go to war. How can players tell their own stories if there is a book of regulations and conditions they have to follow before being able to interact with one another?

Wardecs exists to remove CONCORD and allow legal fighting in highsec. That is it; that is their primary purpose. We the players get to make up the reasons why we go to war, and decide who we will fight.

Why should the target always have a chance to fight back? Don't get me wrong, I am all for adding reasons to go to war that would put two equal-ish sides against each other, but this is a open-universe sandbox game where anyone can fight anyone else. Why should you be able to mouth-off, take my spawns, or mine "my" ice belt out with impunity because you are in a small, weak corporation while I am in a large, strong corporation? I should be able to put you in your place regardless of how weak and ineffectual your corp is.

The problem with regulating wardecs like you want is that if you allow players to be safe just for being small and weak, veteran players will purposely make themselves small and weak to exploit the free protection it provides. Safety should come from grouping up and investing in defence, not hiding behind CONCORD and free NPC-enforced protection.

When CCP gets around to revamping wars again, they are not going to neuter wars by giving 'real' corporations free protection from attack. Wars are absolutely necessary to remove structures, and that will become evermore important as more structures are released and they provide more utility. Unregulated and open wars, at least between 'real' corporations, are here to stay.

Besides, wars are optional. If you don't want to fight, just take the out CCP has thoughtfully given you and return to the NPC corp. You seem to be endlessly complaining about one of the more consensual forms of PvP in a game full of harsh, non-consensual PvP.

I have. Why should every group in Eve always have a chance to successfully fight back against every other group? There is a huge variation in the size and strength of the groups in Eve ranging from the might of a full-fledged nullsec coalition, to the corporation of three real-life friends who joined the game last month to mine in highsec. How can you balance the game so that every group has a chance against any other group? You can't, not without completely throwing out the non-consensual sandbox element the game was founded on.

Fights between unequally matched sides are the norm in Eve, not the exception. Wardecs are no different. Many players seem to be unable to accept this reality of Eve and that wardecs are not some 'matchmaker' mechanic designed to produce 'gud fights' but rather just the mechanic by which the intended player-driven, sandbox gameplay can take place in highsec.

Take a step back and look at the big picture.

If you have no chance, you don't undock just like everyone else everywhere in this game. You don't have to fight if you don't want to, or can't win.

I still don't see how you can ensure a chance for every group to win. There will always be fights you cannot win in this game as long as players are allowed the freedom to attack whomever they want.

That's the game. No one likes losing and if they think they have no chance, they will not fight. For some players, they never think they have the chance and will never fight or even try. The are destined for an unhappy and probably short Eve career. For others, this motivates them to get stronger and get more friends so that they are strong enough to possibly win, or at least have enough of a bite that the larger fish leave them alone. These are the groups that rise to the top.

This all working as intended. Eve, after all, derives from Everyone vs. Everyone and is suppose to be a glorious, player-driven free-for-all where emergent order can arise. It is not suppose to be a mining and missioning simulator where players are entitled to grind resources without opposition into the shared economy as so many of these complainers think it is or should be.

Killboards have no direct impact on the game. That is not to say they don't influence player behaviour, and I agree that all of that influence is good, but you can't get rid of them. If you tried, players would just start up the unofficial killboards to publish their kills like we had before the API/CREST, and arguably it would be worse if they were not verified at all. In any case, killmails and killboards have really little specifically to do with wars, and their impact is all psychological anyway (ok, not completely as some intel is provided to potential opponents by their existence).

This is just a game. If you are afraid of undocking because there might be a record of you losing an imaginary spaceship in a game where we are suppose to lose spaceships to each other regularly, you take internet spaceships a little too seriously. And given you can make alts and transfer skillpoints thus changing your identity, such a fixation is unhealthy and often counter-productive to your fun.