Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How do you know that when I havent said what it is you should do instead of docking up?

I'm a suicide ganker, among other things. I can do that pretty much whenever I want.

And your suggestion, by the way, is entirely self serving. If such a thing were done, the defenders are still incentivized to just sit and wait it out. And the attackers are tied down to the tower, unable to pursue much past it, so the defenders can just leave the area and be 100% safe, nevermind having to make the large initial outlay of the cost of the tower in the first place.

But that was your intent, wasn't it? To put a roadblock on legitimate gameplay.

Id rather keep my strategies for preventing wardecs being a meaningful threat to myself, thank you

Please explain how me having a large minmatar deathstar in a highsec system that would take 100+ man hours to destroy would get anyone our of their "hiding holes".

POS bashing in highsec is utterly grueling and the defenders in highsec wars are thoroughly unequipped to do it, highsec mercs charge outlandish fees for POS takedowns against defended towers because of how ****** it is and even when they do happen it's extremely rare for anyone to actively defend them. You'd essentially be trading war bills for a POS fuel bill while making it totally impossible for the majority of corps in highsec to fight wars at all regardless of whether or not they have a legitimate reason for them.

You've clearly never spent a second of your time playing this game fighting in highsec, so I'm struggling to see how you feel you're qualified to make suggestions about how to improve highsec warfare.

Tut!

Now he knows the "secrets" of how to make isk while during a war while not ever docking

It was so hard for him to work out too!

Please stop posting.

What you aren't accounting for is that the aggressor has only a single target in a war, the defender. If the aggressor hires in help (in the form of a new war) then it costs them a single dec fee. However since the defender has to defend against the combination of the aggressors forces they have to pay an ally 2 dec fees (otherwise their ally would only be able to engage half the enemy fleet). If the aggressor then adds a second ally then in total they have paid 2 dec fees to allies however for the defender that will cost 6....if the aggressor has 3 allies then it costs them 3 dec fees but the defender will pay 12 and so on.
It is not essential that the defenders allies be able to engage all the aggressors allies but it makes a lot of sense if they can, it is also a good way of making stuff blow up which is not a terrible idea.
Allowing the aggressor to spawn multiple wars (via allies) against a single target rather than keeping things wrapped up in a single war can hardly be described with positive language or as an advantage for the defender. All it achieves is adding to the risk of fighting the original aggressor, it would be better if the aggressor had the same ally option as the defender but perhaps with cost implications or something.


The intention must have been for there to be a reason for a war since the word war has a specific meaning, it requires conflict which requires the parties to have knowledge of each other to the extent that they can disagree. What Eve has is probably closer to a skirmish system although even then that is not accurate, two parties ignorant of each other fighting with no goal or purpose for a fixed period of time is not a circumstance that the author of the dictionary felt the need to account for specifically, especially since they would have known that 'daft' would suffice should the need arise, in fairness it is unlikely that they were expecting computer games since they didn't make a word for them either.
I do think that different terms should be used to describe the system and its participants, it is not a system of war, the aggressor seems to nearly always be found defending a trade hub whilst the defender would have to aggressively seek out the aggressor if they want a fight. The way in which the terminology is used does seem to do little to help manage expectations, people probably wouldn't mind a war once in a while but the system tells people to expect a steak and then provides tofu.

To me it seems that there should be some sort of skirmish system similar to the current war system but shorter and perhaps more spur of the moment. There should also be a war system that requires more commitment and some purpose or victory condition or other options that served some purpose.
Certainly it is a strange area of the game, high sec should have more pvp opportunities and it is easy to see that the war system is incredibly bad at providing them yet it is the pvp'ers that seem desperate to stick with a poor attempt at a catch all solution for high sec pvp rather than replacing it with more alternatives that better serve the variety of ways people make use of the current system.

Please quote where I have said a wardec is anything but a waste of time?

Its different because the DEFENDER is now DEFENDING the asset the ATTACKER wants to destroy

Your way around made no sense at all

Oh if only

The last three decs we have got were from stupid little cheese-stained peckers who want to kill our slave-miners

They dont even bother attacking the proper assets

Its pathetic really