Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So i am finding the war system to be very unstimulating. In eve i never see the draw in warring someone. I like pvp but i can just boogy out to lowsec to get my fix. So lets take a look at what the war system in place allows us to do.
♦ It Allows us to fight players in highsec.
♦ It allows us to destroy corp assets in space in highsec.

Face value that seems to be the end result. People can construe their own reasons to why they want to kill players in HS to make a reason for them to commit to a war. There just seems to be very little draw in fighting players in highsec beyond greifing, so wars really don't have any value to them. I've also heard stories from people in Nullsec corps losing players to FW because its funner than Nullsec and they get payed to do it.

It seems like "wars" are not really filling the excitement and reward gaps that players are going out to risk their ships over.

So it would seem time for a change to the whole system so everyone everywhere will use it. benefit from it, and add meaning back to the wars.

I propose that we add a more blunt Risk/Reward system. One where the Offending party picks items/ assets/ space/ isk from the opposing corporation that they would receive if they win, at the expense of having to anti up fair value (That would be depicted by the games under the hood systems) if they lose.

We wouldn't be trashing the war system thats in place now, but we would be expanding on it and limiting it at the same time. The big point where these two systems would diverge is at the "Mutuality" point. IF the war is accepted as Mutual then both opposing corporations would then be fighting for winning the others prize. IF the war is NOT Mutual then the war follows the old system where players will just fight each other untill a week has passed. (No extensions past a week)

Some examples:
Red corp declares war on Blue corp. Red corp has picked 3 POCO's that blue corp owns as their prize if they win. Eve computing hamsters decide each POCO is worth 200M, totaling 600M. Red Corp now needs to lock away 600M in isk, items, or assets in space into CONCORD hands as a third party holder. The war declaration is then announced and the 24H countdown begins. During the 24H countdown Blue corp will have to see the war proposal and decide whether they opt out of mutual war or not. Blue Corp likes the thought of winning 600M so they declare it as mutual. War begins and ends. Red Corp wins at the end of the 7th day. The POCO's enter into a 12H move out/ transition of ownership period. War cooldowns go into effect.

Lets do the same situation again only in this scenario Blue Corp opts that it is not a mutual war. War rewards are unlocked and returned to original owners. Regular system war is in place, after 7 days the war ends and Cooldowns go into effect.

There was probably a couple terms in there that stood out to you.

♦The 7th day
♦Move out/ Transition Period
♦No Extensions
♦War Cooldowns

Lets expand.
The 7th day:
- The last day of war, the winner is decided. There is no 24H countdown to exit combat. Corps move into 12H transition period.

Move out/ Transition Period
-12H period where players of the losing corp can move as much stuff from that they can from structures in space before ownership changes. So cleaning out POS modules that are locked in space or whole stations or systems in null.

No Extensions
-There is a little flex to this rule but as a general note any war that is not mutual will only be 7 days long and then will end. Mutual wars however will be 7 days unless the value of the rewards pass a 2.5B threshold, in which case it would be fitting to have more time to fight over that reward so a 5 day extension would be added. Another 5 days could be added at another threshold and scale.

War Cooldowns
- These would be introduced to lower greifing and harassment and would have different values based on situation.
- Blue Corp Mutually wars Red. Blue wins: 2 Weeks until Blue can re-war Red. Red can re-war in 1 week.
- Blue Mutually wars Red. Red Wins: 2 Weeks cooldown both sides.
- Red wars Blue, not mutual. Red corp: 1 Month cooldown. Blue Corp: 1 Week (If they think they can win this time or if they want to offer lower risk/rewards than red corp offered.)

"Well thats great and all but now everyone wants a peice of me because my corp has sh*t piles of stuff in space."
I could say suffer and die in piles of war decs, OR we could go back to the mention of limiting wars.
Limiting them in the sense of how many a corp can have actively outgoing and mutual at one time instead of the current system being next to infinite.
Red Corp can declare war on 3 other corps at one time, and can accept up to 5 mutual wars at one time. All other incoming war declarations will not be able to be made mutual at that time and will just enter a non mutual state.
Limiting the scope of how many active wars can be made at one time should in turn create more focus and involvement on the wars that are happening instead of having 50-80 wars where the players are too spread out to be effective and have just turned highsec into their own personal barge hunting grounds.
Now to the corp who has sh*t piles of stuff in space, even though you can still have a large number of non mutual wars, the odds of you being targeted for them has lowered significantly as there are other corps who have sh*t piles of stuff in space and they will be your meat shield and draw other corps away. (Unless of course you have the shiniest of shiny's in space in which case prepare yourself).

As i get to the end of this i should bring up Defender assistance in wars. Simple answer is they can still join in but must split the loss reward and win reward with the offended corp and will have a mutual war added to their count.

Im sure over the time i spent writing this ive made errors or left holes in the theory. But the major idea is here for consideration.

I would support (and already suggested) a distinction between mutual and non-consensual wars. The mutual one being cheaper and paid by both parties, the other more costly for the aggressor to commit.

Yet at the same time I am also supporting a restriction to the numbers of wars being fought on the same time and skill based.
The thread is still open

So many wardec threads open ... °°

I disagree with that .. our CEO has been inactive for 6 months now .... corp still doing well, without leadership, so we should get day-raped?

As far as i am aware with our current system, players with Director status have the ability to make decisions on all corp activities as well as the CEO. You shouldn't be day-raped if your CEO is inactive as long as your corp has someone as a director as well.
If you dont have either of those then EVE has a mechanic in place to run an election for a new CEO.

In general playing with a corp that has no one in control of the leadership mechanics will run into problems down the road without wars, if they ever want to do stuff like POS work, or corp division tabs/changes, so getting someone behind the driver seat of your corp would be of benefit before it becomes a hinderance.

This would be a problem if corporations wern't paying attention to war declerations comming in. A corp could easily have 4 directors on top of a CEO, if 5 people miss a war dec, some responsibility has to be on the receiving corporation. Beyond that, the stuff you pointed out is stuff you can do in the current system today.

Tower in the way - intel - wardec - towerbash

This does however make a point to me of 1-5man corps who run the chance of not being online for days at a time. Small corps shouldnt be stamped out just because they are small. I cant think of a reliable way around this so retracting the "Corps are mutual untill opt out" would be best course.

The Goal of this thread is to create more interest in fighting back because the current system we follow, most people dont fight because they have no reason/ will too. If the corp being war decced has no interest in the war or the potential prizes to be made from participating, they just make the war non-mutual and it goes the way of the old system where the opposing corp can come and just stab away at miners who dont feel like being at the keyboard for a week. Then the corp that doesnt feel like fighting doesnt have to worry about being war decced by that corp for a month or having the war extended.

Seems like a bit of win for the corp that doesnt fight back.

Lots of Nullbears sitting around the campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya. I am sure some of them would love to go to war against you.

All I read about was null and low-sec was where the pvp is but it seems no one who lives there has any interest in fighting anyone that will fight back.....unless they out blob them first.

If you want war get out to the supposed lawless west and start something.

why would any defender choose a mutual war and risk his stuff when he can choose non-mutual and dock up for a week and not lose anything just like now?

This may make a nice competition style dec between PvP'er corps, but changes little for the 'little guy'. the very ppl your championing this idea for dont seem to have anything to gain from this idea. Only lose if their utter idiot of a CEO doesnt log in in time.

Carebears will just cry until non-mutual is made the default.