Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If there is no other reason that the wardec groups would have for erecting a Citadel (or other Corp that might want to declare war at some point), then I'm not sure that this solves much.

At one end of the spectrum, small independent players/Corps might want to declare war on someone else, because they have a real goal in doing so. At the other end, there are the large wardeccing entities with their 200+ wardecs per week.

At first thought, this proposal puts a huge burden on the small individuals/Corps/Alliances in an attempt to affect the large groups. It would effectively cut out many of the uses of the wardec mechanics that people commonly see as 'legitimate' reasons to go to war.

If for example, a small industrial/mining Corp has local competition that want to remove, they would need to justify the time and expense to erect a Citadel just so they could declare war, while the opponent could still immediately dissolve Corp and reform a new one, or drop key characters to NPC Corps and continue through trades to maintain low taxes and keep income in the Corp.

As a result, especially at the small end of wardecs, all the burden is shifted to the attacker with no additional skin in the game for the defender.

Rather than a stick approach to wardec changes, I think I'd rather see a carrot approach.

It's a masochist's endeavour to propose changes to the wardec mechanics, because no system is going to ever be perfect, however since I like a bit of self-flaggelation these are changes I would more likely suggest:

1. Change the name of 'Surrender' to 'Cease Fire' or 'Truce'

Player ego is a big thing in Eve. The thought of an attacker surrendering is kind of crazy. For many defenders, same thing. They either don't want to surrender, or believe that a surrender will be followed by many more wardecs to extract ISK.

However, there is nothing inherently wrong in the mechanics of surrender, it's just a ****** name.

Let players keep their pride and negotiate something other than a surrender, making it a bit of a softer thing, but still with the same outcome.

That way, a losing attacker might be willing to offer a 0 ISK cease fire, which the defender can accept and then everyone continues on their merry way.

2. Instead of a 'war office' to allow wardecs, introduce an 'intel office' or 'hacking team' as a module for Citadels.

So, rather than requiring an office to be able to declare wars, introduce a way to gain back the watchlist system against enemies.

Corps who have a Citadel, fitted with an Intel Office are able to tap into the CONCORD/NPC Corp networks (or whatever other story) either electronically, or through humint and know when their opponents logon or logoff.

After all, if NPC locator agents have networks that inform them of a characters whereabouts, it should be possible for us super human capsuleers to be able to tap into that system in a limited way at least to know if a character has just been spotted somewhere (not where, just that they are online). We're half computer as it is. Surely in 20,000 years from now hacking will still be a thing.

Give a positive reason to have a Citadel rather than a negative.

It gives something defenders can shoot if they want to and the loss woudn't be an ISK thing, it would be an ego thing.

It wouldn't be compulsory by any means, but an intel office that provides limited watchlist functionality back would be an incentive to have additional assets at risk.

Big potential downside would be that lowsec/nullsec groups could use an alt Corp in highsec to bring back Intel on Titan and super cap pilots through wardec watch lists. So I don't know how possible it would be to restrict it to highsec only. Might make the whole thing impossible.

3. Sliding wardec costs

Personally, I don't see the need to break up the big wardec groups, however if that was something that would be a positive thing for highsec aggression, then slide the cost of wardecs up after the first 50.

Still allow Corps/Alliances to have 50 wardecs at current prices, but after that increase the price exponentially. If large wardec groups still want to maintain their 200+ decs a week, then they need to do so through several smaller Corps/Alliances; which might encourage defenders to try to engage, especially if there is a Citadel to scalp.

4. Remove faction police during wars. If CONCORD can be switched off, so can facpo.

This is a purely selfish suggestion, but with large numbers of our Alliance members being pirate sec status, coming to highsec to help new players is a PITA.

Let us enter highsec during a wardec so we can bring defense to our highsec players and/or consider engaging the attackers or their assets.

At the moment the attackers get the help of NPCs, so why bother?

Cut allies at the same time. At least don't make them free.


I'll probably be left bleeding to death on the floor after the self-inflicted wounds that result from thinking about wardec mechanic changes, but that would be my suggestion.

There will always be whingers when it comes to aggression in highsec and no one group or side should be punished by the mechanics. Leave the players to inflict the punishment on each other as the current mechanics allow.

we have a war that was started 2016.06.13 and is ongoing for sole reason that raz will not push a button marked "Surrender"
havent seen the lads in months but still at war.

So for the cost of an alt corp to mutualize a wardec and 50m, nobody ever has to deal with facpo again?

It would not be free at all, because wardeccing the entire game would actually carry a built in risk of reprisal.

Right now, such a risk fundamentally does not exist as there's nothing actually in play.

Damn, got us there, exploding ships with the power of our mind this whole time.

Oh hey there. I noticed youre dodging my question. Can you actually list some mechanics that exclusively give the agressor the advantage?

You want to know where the advantage lies? Its in the fact that most people that war dec are going to be ready to handle most situations. Outside of being baited or blobbed, war dec groups have refined strategies and kniwledge to gain an upper hand on someone thats not even wanting to fight...

Hell even against someone thats prepared to fight what they think is a "fair" 1v1 theres almost no chance, because lets face it. The way i fit my ship with my logi on hand... Im like 4 of your ships combined. So the problem isnt that groups lack things to shoot at because... Woo hoo!!!!! Im right here in Sheroo killing your corp mates golem, dropping billions on grid to secure a kill. You guys play in low and null so thats where your focus is. You dont want to have to come to highsec to hunt us down and take the effort to properly bait. You just want a stationary target that you can form a fleet up for.

The issue is still with you and most people that arent interest in fighting, amd complaining that war decs suck when they get killed. Well guess what Vicky, this is eve and at the end of the daym the better, more prepared, and more knowledgable will win. Just so happens that when you play against the plebs of new eden, they are severly hamdicapped. Not my fault.

the devil has witches for warriors !!!!!

Firstly, nobody in highsec has any of those things and the implication you're making is that those things are required for people to be able to fight in any way whatsoever. Which is obviously untrue because if it was the aggressors themselves, also lacking those tools, would also be unable to do anything to the defenders. From a tactical perspective all involved parties are on a completely level playing field.

Secondly you're directly complaining about a lack of specific game mechanics in highsec while also asserting that there are too many mechanics in highsec, it is impossible for both of these things to be true. It's pretty obvious that what you're actually complaining about is not being able to use the crutches you would normally lean on. That being the case why not make a thread suggesting that cynos, capitals, bubbles and command destroyers be allowed in highsec, sine apparently that would allow he defenders in wars to fight back against aggressors?

Also I don't think you know how you think neutral logistics works.