Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Lot of people complain about wardecs, risk aversion, how cheap it is and how easy to hop away and so on. Then some comments that go to nullsec.. its safer for these who are being called as "carebears". Nullsec have only room for those who are willing to pay few billion to rent a system.. or those who join to existing corproations there. But either way that same thing could be asked from these people who love to dec. why you don't go to nullsec? there is fights and targets and no need to pay :P

That being said here is just some of my viewpoints how things could be upgraded in hisec wardecs:

1) the problem: people can just leave corp when it doesn't please them without consequences.

1A) you can't leave corporation during wardec. Applies both on attacer and defender (of course this is prone to never ending wars).

1B) you can leave corporation during wardec but you can't join on new one or create new one within 1 week from moment you leave.

1C) one who want to leave corp that is in war have to pay certain sum of isk for the right to flee

These might be some sort of solution for corp hopping.

2) the problem: Defender and war luck. Defender who is actually gaining upper hand on war have very few options to handle the situation. Attacker can just stop paying for war and the war comes to an end and then needs defender to declear war. If defender calls war "mutual", attacker can just retract war.

2A) If war is deemed as mutual and attacker decides to retract war: defender have 24h time to pay wardec cost and if pays war will continue now without break defender as attacker. Otherwise war ends as usually.

2B) now we have issue as defender may have some called in allies. As war is decleared mutual and attacker withdraws war: the defender and his allies each get the option to pay now wardec cost to keep war going them as attackers. Each of them now becomes as separate attacker with their own fee to pay. (defender allies could be automatically allies for all wars)

What we achieve now is the thing that war can be started when you like but its end isn't neccessarily certain to happen when you want.

No solution is so perfect that would suit both parties but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things.

1A: No. There's no such thing as a "Highsec war". There is just war. Having a wardec lock people into a corp as long as a war is on is pants on head ********. Especially when a 1 man corp could wardec a 10k man alliance and prevent anyone from leaving it as long as they are willing to pay the wardec fee.

1B: No. Hurts people who want to move chars around for legit reasons (say moving from a corp in one alliance that is at war to another corp) without effecting war dodgers who drop to avoid a highsec war by wardeccers. Why should I have a one week cooling period to move from one permadecced nullsec alliance to another?

1C: No. Rich would ignore it, poor couldn't afford it, would only impact the lowest end of the player food chain.

2A/B/C: I dgaf. They are all actions which can already be done or nearly so through current mechanics. But I don't really see a reason to implement them. If a defender gaining the upper hand wants to continue a war, they ca just declare war themselves. Same option goes to their allies. Special changes for the one in a blue moon occurrence of the defenders winning but wanting to continue a war without interruption don't really merit special mechanics in my opinion.

And even if the system was added, the new war would need to convert from an A vs B to a B vs A war anyway. B paying concord to sustain an A vs B war would be silly, and it would need to show the previous defenders as the new aggressors, and for them to pay all the fee's that they would ordinarily pay for the privilege of wardweccing their new targets.

You have issues with your section 1.


You are penalizing players leaving because they just don't dig their current corp/alliance leadership. Not all leaving corps during a war are dodging a war per se. They could could just really be tired of leadership doing stupid crap to get them in yet another war again....and the latest one is the straw that broke the camel's back.

Kind of harsh to punish a player for doing the right thing. Home they re in sucked, not changing anytime soon...so they left it to not hate logging in. You are kind making eve like rl military here. I had the displeasure of being stuck in unit that was utter ****. You can't quit it obviously...so you just wake up every day not liking it more and more and counting days till you rotate out of it. I signed a contract and was paid (albeit poorly lol) to deal with this crap. Eve is a game, why they hell you going to bring this crap in it




That and please allow me to whip out the broken record....you dec the corp not the players. For the 1000th time for the empire people....when you dec an entity and they shut down because people leave it you have won the war. Push a crew till they faliscade. This is a win. This is how 0.0 does it. Force the failscade, post in caod, beat chest and move on to something else.

You aren't getting warfare till the enemy is broken. At some point even 0.0 most times just shatters and does their own thing. Goons imploded years back, became many fractured crews, french alliance gave them a couch to crash on as it were....now its 2015 and well goons are goons again. Moral to this story....no crew as much as they despise goons has ever wiped them off the server. Best we got was post kartoon there were no goons in the sense of an alliance for a few months (or weeks?, can't recall). They were however alive and kicking as solodrakbansolodrakbansolo.... and such.


Empire pvp wants total warfare...leave empire. NBSI....gets you as many targets as your ammo allows you to kill (just don't join a blue ball from hell that has blued or NAP'd more than half the server).

Is this a troll post

And suddenly you have thousands of entirely invulnerable POSes scattered about highsec. Might want to rethink that - risk vs reward and all that.

Actually they could do with a way for the defender to "win", i.e. force a resolution. They can never create a situation where the attacker must fight either. The deck is wholly and completely stacked in the attackers favour, unless they are complete idiots.

So what's the penalty to aggressors with no assets who decide they won't fight unless it's to shoot haulers? "Defenders" cannot, ever (assuming attacker is not a moron), force a resolution if they are superior.

It's well and good forcing/penalising "defenders" who do not fight - but balance demands the same onus be placed on attackers.

As long as dec dodging exists, the answer will and should be nothing.

Either give up the broken exploit, or deal with it.

Depends how you look at it really. While a narrow scope for ending the war quicker might be worthwhile, Defenders 'win' by maintaining the advantages they have, whether it be a POS that does x better, the ability to shove out shiny ships for missions or whatever it is that gets them decced.

There seems to be a general sentiment that wardecs are broken because 90% of them are simply grief wars, which is a bollocks argument because the answer to such wars is nothing more than basic competence. If a defending corp zergs 20 Thrashers into shiny Proteus it will bag a killmail and such deccers will quickly **** off. That many corps choose to dock up and whine or fly defenceless ships alone instead does not mean the mechanic is broken.

That leaves you with merc wars and/or bigger, more organised corps coming and kicking over your sandcastle. In a game where everyone competes with someone to a certain extent, both are justified and neither would particularly benefit from a way for the defenders (or aggressors) to win decisively.

Well of course. Neither side has an advantage by default under the current system, its simply the bigger retards who put the shinier stuff at risk who come out of it the worse. That attackers can pick their target is useful but doesn't really give them an advantage nor prevent the defenders from acting competently. Most tears come from people who just don't grasp things like opportunity cost and that is not a symptom of a broken mechanic.

Highsec wars are rarely the peak of elite pvp, it doesn't take a mastermind to make the vast majority of corps decide you're not worth the effort very quickly. If you do come up against someone you can't reasonably defeat, well, that's kinda the game.