Player Features and Ideas Discussion

TL/DR: Make the aggressors in highsec wars go suspect when they shoot the defenders to allow people to third-party wars on behalf of the defenders.

Right now, highsec wardec mechanics are bad. The vast majority of highsec "wars" consist of one powerful group of players repeatedly thrashing a weaker (often new) group of players. As a new player, it's a miserable experience, and as an older player, even if you want to help, there is literally nothing you can do. Avoiding the term "griefing" is difficult to do, but since there's a mechanic designed specifically to allow players to do this, it's hard to say it's a violation of the EULA.

On the other hand, highsec wardecs are necessary. First, this is EVE, and restricting away part of the risk vs. reward gameplay is generally not good. Also, structures in highsec would be absolutely secure, and moons would get locked down forever even if the player no longer plays the game.

A way to deal with the former problem, while not creating the later would be to increase the risk of highsec wars. An easy way to do this would be to give the aggressors in a war a suspect timer every time they shoot the defenders, but not vice versa. CONCORD doesn't get involved, and their sec status does not go down, but if a random person, corp or alliance wants to help the defenders, they can do so without merging into the same alliance. It would add content, and give new players a fighting chance against a wardec, especially if they participate in the best aspect of EVE, the social aspect, and ask for help.

War mechanics are just fine.

The problem with wars lies in two places.
1. Too many high sec stations. You could remove 9 out of 10 stations in highsec and every 3rd or so system would still have a station on average. Most systems have several. This means there is no point forming a group in order to maintain a citadel or the like. Therefore nothing to cause the creation of significant highsec only groups other than the wardec agencies.

2. The pre-nerfed state of highsec structures. Which come with both weaker defences & weaker stats than the identical structure in null. Which again means there is a lot less draw to create a significant sized group in highsec.

Solve those two issues, and you will see the creation of more significant corps in highsec that can actually effectively fight back.

P.S. The Ally mechanics are more used by the attackers to exploit isk out of the defenders either way via alt corps. So no, the ally mechanics are in the usual EVE way, poor due to how easy it is to scam with them.

So basically, you want instant allies (or to be an instant ally) on an as-needed basis with no commitment?

Yeah... no. If you want an ally (or be an ally), commit to the overall conflict.

Defenders have more than a few advantages... both in the war system (ally mechanic) and in the overall ship mechanics (a few cheapo Griffins can turn the tide in a battle... even against "advanced ships"... it simply requires organization).


Making the aggressors go "Suspect Status" every time they engage their opponent strikes me as be unnecessarily punitive.

On a side note, I'm getting pretty tired of null boyos telling me how my gameplay should be.

Had I told you how cynos and cap mechanics should be to suit my inclinations I'd be told to **** off .

I tend to agree a bit with James here. Many corps start hundreds of wars to to make trade stations their ganking space, so it seems like the original intent of the game mechanic is kind of exploited by some. Maybe there could be a limit to how many wardec's an alliance/corp could start or ally with at the same time?

mass wars are a symptom of a problem
here are some of the extensive conversations we have had on the topic recently
http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=479121&find=unread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6630762
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=498635&find=unread

Thanks for the links. It does give me some more perspective on highsec wardecs. However, I don't think it invalidates my proposal in any way

The CZ suggestion is complicated and still incentivizes attacking any newbie corp that decides to put up a small reprocessing tower somewhere, because they're a valid target and still can't retaliate and bash the war room citadel (or whatever it ends up being), because they just don't have the firepower. Players will just organize differently to exploit the mechanics, like dividing into a lot of smaller corps that all individually attack the defender.

The stuff on locator agents and the like are valid. I've been a part of intel-gathering, and I know from experience that it's a fairly obnoxious chore. I would like to see better intel tools made available, preferably with some risk and counterplay attached. Like maybe a structure that you drop in space that gives you more specific statistics on a wardeced target over a region, constellation or system. Giving people suspect timers and giving mercs better intel tools to work with are not mutually exclusive, in fact, I think the two would work well together.

Good point. That is not at all what I had in mind, but it is what would happen. The idea needs refinement. How about this: A wardec suspect timer is a special kind of suspect timer. It flashes a different color, and if you shoot the person, you get a limited engagement timer with the person's corp and alliance. If someone provides remote assistance to you, they also get a limited engagement timer too. Would that solve the problem?

If this was implemented (i doubt it) the only way to make it work is if shooting someone who is suspect because of a wardec also makes you suspect.

This would also allow allies to be joined on both sides (provided the defenders initiate allies first).




Oooor we could just use the ally system and then wars can occur with due notice and don't have complicated mechanics.

Confirming I agree.

I have no real good ideas for how to change the mechanics because I don't have huge experience using them, but the last thing we need is to make a style of play less viable because we don't like it.