Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This was always only your opinion. High sec has become too safe and this needs some change was my opinion and the reason for this thread. I did a straw poll of forty people I know with highsec alts in corps of under twenty people and none of them had been wardecced in the last year. My four highsec corps have been ignored as well. Is a highsec with so little conflict what we want? I know you do.

Look at all the bullshit ideas recently that are antithetical to what EVE was about: massive increases to costs (from 250 million to 2 billion a week have been proposed), consensual PvP (from flags to counter bribes where large and economic forused corps will win by default), de facto removing wardecs (from making them too expensive to implementing size requirements where you cannot dec someone with more than double the number of members you have), actual removing of wardecs, complex victory conditions (capture the flag or area, must have a pos, some sort of kill/loss measure) and all the ideas that do nothing to fix any of the current problems with wardec mechanics.

A counter thread was needed to all this concentrated carebear bullshit and this was why this thread was created not for some imaginary reason that you think it was created for.



Unfortunately your ideas have all failed very badly at this. I have read your threads and they are just not worth commenting on due to their fail.

The above quote is as full of **** as your splitting eve into PvP and PvE was (now you are claiming this was a joke? Seriously, you think we will buy this?).

Your attempts at balancing in all the threads and posts of yours I have read have been full of fail. There is no need for complex wardec mechanics, no need for a consensual PvP flag (even if it is termed a counter bribe or whatever), no need for all the carebear based changes you keep proposing. High sec is aready too safe, you never understand this and so you really do want to split EVE into PvP and PvE servers.

Did I say your ideas were full of fail? If not, they are full of fail.



This is not a problem. The fact that you cant see that this is what EVE is about astounds me. If you cant protect yourself from prolonged adversity then EVE is not a game for you.

There are lots of in game solutions to this. From joining better corps, or hiring mercs (the economic option), to working out in game strategies to counter or fight back makes EVE what it is. This is what separates EVE from all other games like WOW.



First off make yourself an alliance so costs become 50 million a week and this will reduce the drive-by-wardecs by a large percentage.

It is always the assumption from carebears that because they are rich from carebear activities that everyone else is rich. This is not the case. Not everyone does incursions to get billions a day and assuming that people have billions to spend on wardecs each week is wrong.

Take EVE university and their dec shield as an example of why massive price increases will result in no wars. It currently costs one billion a week to dec them and no one has except for the two man corp who whomped their asses and even he quickly stopped. Can we assume that massive price increases will result in no wars from this? No, but it is at least some evidence that massive wardec cost increases will lead to far, far fewer wars in high sec.

Is this state of affairs desirable? I think it is not. You think it is. This is the fundamental difference between us and no wars due to massive costs is why I dont think massive wardec cost increases are desirable in EVE.



Fail, just fail. No doubt carebears like you want this to continue but claiming most people without any form of factual evidence to back this up is what we have come to expect from you on these forums.

the proposals in your original post are a mix of suggested changes to the current system and how it should stay as it is... If highsec is supposedly currently too safe, why arent current wardecs used more? they offer what you want, decced people WILL end up in lowsec everywhere. has it come to your mind that one reason those people you refer to were not decced because nobody felt they would gain an advantage of it? how would any of your proposals change that? (as a side-note: besides the fun-part, nobody has an advantage doing pvp/destroying wealth)

sure, not everyone is rich. but i doubt highsec is the answer to getting rich. if you run FW missions you can make 30k LP in 45min or go get a carrier and run 3 10/10 havens plus 70mil bounties per hour in a cynojammed system. the money you can make is so much more compared to what you loose having your ship killed once in a while.

if some 1.0 systems (totally around 8, mostly dead-end systems anyway) would be put under extreme concord/faction navy supervision and any non-consensual pvp would be prohibited there, this would not change any regular gameplay. but noobs would be put in a perfectly safe learning space. i doubt anyone would want to be limited to 1 system longterm, besides, those systems would offer only L1 missions and few ore, thus cannot sustain any hated carebears.

Is this the boo hoo you cant get kills in low/null and want to pad your killboard with us poor innocent carebears lol-defence?

HTFU.

This goes more to the foundation of what wardecs are for. I have a thread idea for this but no time for developing it today. (if this thread upsets you then I suggest you dont read the thread I have planned.)



No one would have a problem with some really safe systems for new players to learn the basics in.

There is a difference between new players and players who want EVE to be a solo game, or at least one where they are insulated from the harshness of EVE. Joe Carebear is an example of a player who wants this insulation from danger in EVE, dont be confused about this as his posts emphasise this a lot, but this way is the path to the death of EVE as a unique game.

High sec is not too safe in some opinions. See, your opinion is that high sec is too safe and everyone agrees with you because......well....I guess you think you're special. However, what you fail to realize is that for the people in high sec.

Perhaps you should sit back and realize that the reason less people are getting war decced in high sec might be because there are less people in high sec wanting to war dec.


Well, you mentioned that my ideas were fail, but you haven't given a reason to why you think my ideas are fail, other than saying my ideas are fail. On the other hand, reguardless of whether my ideas are fail or not, at least I have made attempts at balancing the system for both sides, where as you seem to be stuck on the "bash the carebears for trying to play safe" mentality.

Agreed, there isn't a problem with players attacking carebear corps. However, there is a problem with the fact that they're doing it for pennies a week. There is also a problem with the fact that these players have no way of getting out of the war. There is also a problem with the fact that even if they're presented with surrender options, there is no way of them having assurance that the other players will follow through on the conditions.

The fact that you can't see that war decs are entirely too cheap and one sided astounds me.
The fact that you seem to want to make this worse appals me.


First off, no.. I don't want to be in an alliance. I want to be in a small casual corp that is together for nothing more than having friends to game with.
Actually, it is the assumption that most players that aren't carebears have money, because most carebears don't seem to have that much money, unless they're really good at the game.
If it were to cost the same prices to wardec everyone, then while there may be less wardecs, there will also be more meaningful war decs.
Oh, and the intent is to make fewer wars in high sec, because there are less and less people in high sec wanting wars.
They're working on balancing low sec, null sec, and wh's based off the way players thriving in those systems enjoy to play.
However, you assume that us high sec players shouldn't have that same ability because we're safe, or we're carebears.

What???
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of players would prefer the current dec system over what that guy was suggesting.

He had suggested that corps/alliances could pay money to make the cost of wardecs more expensive against them. Yet, the current system allows you to block wardecs all together with little to no isk...

So why would players want to pay money over not paying money?

Oh, and FYI, the corp my main is in doesn't use dec shields.

Let me guess, "post on your main"

hahahah, no.... I've got enough to deal with in game without self indulged griefers, padders, and bic players off the forums thinking that they have some sort of right to dec me off what I say on the forums.

Technically, wouldn't wardeccing and ganking me based off what I say on the forums be considered griefing anyway??

I mean, unless I'm obviously instegating a fight with you. However, that I have not done.

I don't avoid posting on my main to avoid wars, I avoid posting on my main to try and keep the melodramatic emo drama on the threads and out of the game....

ok so i got to the end of page 3 and didnt notice a single new thing brought up about the complaints about high sec wars.

All that is ever discussed when it comes to this topic is the war declaration price and how scared carebears never want to fight and go home to mummy and cry.

Did anyone consider that one of the larger issues is the size of corporation that declares war?

Im sorry but 30-50 man corp is NOT going to go to war with one that might have 100-150 pilots in it. You want more high sec wars stop thinking about money and consider a level playing field. If all you want is ganking then stop complaining about people not fighting as its your own fault they dont come out and play.

wars are meant to be fun and i remember them being fun but somewhere along the way it was considered by some people that is was just easier to attack smaller corps and get easy kills to pad the kb.

thats what is wrong with wars

i think a 10% difference in corp size would probably be a good idea to even the playing field a little.

As for alliances they have sort of made their own bed. even though it is much easier to make an alliance now with money flowing everywhere it shows some organizational skills and should make them immune from the size limit or at least use an expanded size limit of some kind.

I remember when wars were something fun. you would scout a corp and even talk to their ceo to organise terms for the war so that everyone could have a fair chance. I dont know where things went wrong but i do know something does need to change. for those that will say its a sandbox we should be able to declare whoever we want and do what we want i think the fact that people dont want to fight proves that the concept doesnt work when it comes to wars in highsec.

P.S
i did notice someone mentioned npc corps earlier, personally i consider the 11% tax rate on npc corps to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the game. I realise it was brought in as an isk sink but all it did was create hundreds of corps overnight to evade the tax which in a lot of cases are run very very badly and are not good starting points for new players

Reguardless of who you ask, everyone in eve is going to say that the war dec system is broken.

The only problem is each person is going to have a different response on how to fix it based on what they do.

So it seems to me that CCP is gonna have a hell of a time balancing war decs.