Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No. For many of the reasons listed above.

Terrible Idea. Fortunately clear enough in it's intent I didn't even have to read past the first few paragraphs to foretell its terribleness... For that at least I thank you.

Which bit specifically? The ship/fitting restrictions?

Bearing in mind very many new players will rush into the biggest, most expensive ship they can, without even being able to fit the right size guns, when they would be much better off getting some experience flying something smaller or more effective for them.

Of course, we do have exceptions for those who have proven themselves.


Anyway, the SNA is the result of a thought experiment with intention of (in the order of your choice):
1. Allow third parties to end a war without warmups/cooldowns, ie: Mercs.
2. Provide some element of risk for an 'attacker', so they are a little more likely to choose their targets well.
3. Go beyond the 'Pay X ISK to end the war' solutions, as I don't really believe that throwing ISK at something is solution.
4. Eliminate the existing loopholes in the mechanics and build a fairly robust system which doesn't have any big holes in it.
5. Provide a new mechanic which can be used in interesting ways, such as cross-corp FFAs, 'Warp to me, its safe. Honest', etc.

I'm certainly not saying CCP should implement it immeduately, but its an alternative way of doing things, which would add a little complexity but a large potential for unusual interaction between players, which is what makes EVE special.

Yes, the ship and fitting restrictions were what I was referring to. It didn't seem like there was any room for negotiation in the rules. It's good you make exceptions.

There are some other questionable rules too, IMO, which I tried to address but it just ended up being a wall of text so I edited them out of my post.

Look, obviously my criticisms don't carry a lot of water as I've never been in the uni, but as an outsider looking in it looks like you are shooting yourselves in the foot, and instead of trying to improve your tactics, you're asking the game be changed globally to protect your corp (which I still don't think these changes would do). It's hard for people to consider this suggestion unbiased when uni has a long history of speaking out against wardecs placed against it. I get that it's part of your CSM platform to fix wardec mechanics, but I don't think it should be. Even if you're completely impartial on the topic you will appear biased. Stick to other issues.

Yes, however the problem is that you are joining the clients corporation, and therefore you are limited to fighting their attackers, and of course this doesn't scale very well past a few people and its not exactly elegant - does the defending corp still have enough spaces to support all the people they need to, and so on.




I'll quote what Darian said here in reply back in the other thread:

Add to that, of course that its rather difficult to hold PvP related things in SiSi when there's nobody there to fight.

The channel-only thing is sill a possibility and we have tried this in a limited fashion in the past, but there are a lot of things the Uni does whichrequire the corporation infrastructure (hangars, wallets, etc) and wouldn't work at any significant scale without an incredible amount of automation which isn't possible (such as handing out ISK to people after they buy a skillbook), not to mention the community element, which is very important, would likely take a significant hit.

<--- Newbie

Ofc, I can't falsify ideas thrown around by Pro's here regarding the current warfare. Though I do understand to some extent the annoyance it can cause for someone who wishes to war dec someone.

My 2 Cents, have "some sort" of a point system which will allow the Corp to reach a status that will allow them to take part in High Sec wars. The points can be collected through various (assumptious) factors such as corps participation to PvP and other activities of such sort.

This allows corps with a level of maturity status be able to dec wars on corps that are "mature" enough (according to the point status) to take part in war and cannot evade normally as they can atm.

This allows corp that do want to take part in high sec wars be easily visible to others who can go war against them or vice-versa. Allows newbie corps to train themselves and when they wish can work to earn the status of taking part in high sec wars.

This kinda eliminates newbies foolishly taking part in War and realizing the game and its players are too old for them to continue playing eve. AND/OR players that wish to learn before they get their head chopped off and never to bother to return to eve

Then again, my 2 cents.

lol

Well yes, like a PvP flagging system. Its just that all the players here assume they belong to the same skill set, same mentality, same age and/or equally skilled. And expect that everyone who joins in either be on their gaurd before reading 1000 pages of "How to Play Eve" and expect to fight with their Corp which is also expected to be at the same lvl as others are.

If the game was just mean for PvP, why bother having High Sec, Low Sec and Null. Just have them join and play a bloody FPS in submarines.

I'm just going to leave to that.

It's like talking to a wall.

It seems PS was correct and your idea was capture the flag.



This is an example of the de facto wardec immunity that I have already mentioned eve university are pushing for.

No to consensual PvP in any form.

Or "neutral" rr or a merc corp joining the alliance or neutral bumping or ganking or whatever.
About the "elegant" word well... You're the one that advices your corpmates to leave your corporation while at war. It doesn't sound that much "elegant" too.

Or make the pvp part on TQ. The wardecs could even be welcomed.
I'm not saying that these are good ideas ; an alliance/corporation willing to teach the noobs is indeed the best solution. The current problem is that you're trying to run your alliance with different rules : you do not want uncensual pvp, you do not want "unfair" wardecs, and you're trying to do whatever you can to change it (including messing with the highsec sandbox, which will impact all the other corps/alliances).

My issue with the EHP ?
My issue with the shield regen ?
My issue with the prices ?

Your answer doesn't make sense. Did you really read what I said ? Webbing outside the bubble ?
You know what ? I'm going to offer you a pvp lesson.Note that just reading my last post should be enough to understand that problem, if you had that pvp experience.

EVEreppyversity !



It is, as stated by the devs. Mind you, a long time ago there was no Concord to help you.