Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So it's not an expolit today. Thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe you could stop lying about the current gameplay rules, hm?

But then a player who isn't equipped with the skills and knowledge on the use of said MP5 and body armour is making the better choice by stepping inside and locking the armoured door. Or the person who simply doesn't want to shoot the other player because they have no interest in 'bringing it on'. Oh yes and what about when they person bring out the MP5 only to find that the guy with the baseball bat has invisible off-grid body armour that your puny 9mm rounds won't get trough? To some people it simply isn't n option for many many reasons. The fact that they simply don't want to is the best and most valid one.

It's also not anti-social to form a group to carry out industrial activities, what with them being in a large group of like-minded people and all. Just because someone doesn't do things the way you think they should does not make them anti-social.

Also you keep using the one statistic to back up your 'kill people to make them stay' argument. That statistic is not broken down in any way that can clarify exactly what it means. Even if it were true, what about if say 20% of players are long term subbers who happen to enjoy hisec industry along with the good and bad things that come with it? Do you think that CCP would wear the loss of 20% revenue when those players simply quit since your idea of good changes would force them to do something in game that they loathe? There needs to be balance in everything and currently that exists in wardec and corp jumping. You can mess with a corps ability to perform industry but you can't force people to do something they have no wish to do.

Running away is valid. Fitting warp stabs is valid. Not undocking is valid. Hiding in pos shields is valid.

Cheating your way out of being a legal target by abusing the corp creation mechanics is not valid.

I know you can tell the difference, but you won't let go of your golden goose. Don't worry, it's coming anyway, now that the truth is finally a matter of record.




And you just haven't been listening at all, have you? I've been on record as advocating for a number of buffs to player corporations, and subsequent nerfs to NPC corps, to make player corps something definitively worth fighting for, something worth keeping, and giving real rewards to people who can hold onto their corp.



If what they enjoy is detrimental to the health of the game, yes, I can. And that's not even up for debate anymore, PvE playstyles are inarguably poison to new player retention.



The second I can make myself immune to how they effect the market is the second that will be a valid argument.

Until then, you're claiming that you should get to effect me without recourse, like the hypocrite that all carebears are.

I agree with everything but the last here, you know as a wardeccer that there is the posibility that the target will roll and disappear, they are not cheating but using a known and often used tactic to escape.


I play a mainly PvE playstyle and have been here around 20 months now because that is what I enjoy. I could probably learn PvP skills but have not done so yet as I simply don't enjoy it. Thus your statement about inarguably being poison is incorrect.


You gank them, you wardec them to interfere with there industry just when they've clearly loaded up a stack of stuff into the tower. You interfere with their busines in the various ways available to disrupt it. The means are already there. Just because they don't necessarily involve throwing anti-matter shells at them doesn't make them any less valid methods of attacking their business.

Here's the funny part of that example. They were allowed to go on with this unacceptable behavior for years because any time someone suggested getting rid of it, they whined up a storm to try and silence the suggestion.

Sound familiar?

It should, and I am here to advocate for the same result, too.

Just want to spit ball a WarDec idea to see what people think.

What if there were "bands" created based on corp personnel and you could only WD someone inside your band.

Also corps can only dec corps and alliance as a whole only alliances. But a corp of an alliance could still dec another corp regardless of what their alliance does.

Does this fix most peoples complaints? No, but I don't care really. In my thought experiment what it does is match corp sizes to corp sizes, so people who want to fight have a "more reasonable" chance. As long as they actually field players and don't hole up in station.

Then you could have Merc alliances (more game play options?) with different size corps to meet the "band" of the target corp. Plus be able to dec alliances as well.

I would suggest player population for determination of "band" size be some kind of CCP ju-ju math like they use in markets to avoid manipulation by averaging it or something or other.



Again - just looking for feedback. Not trying to "fix" current complaints, but maybe give the little guy who wants to fight a better chance? While at same time maybe adding some more gameplay (corp sizes, merc alliance, advertise we can kill any corp size" etc etc)

And you are wrong here. The current rules allow for a player to drop out of corp and reform a new one whenever they want to, so there is no "cheating " going on here simply the use of a valid game play option to avoid something they do not want to be a part of.


And the same can be said of you. We have read your proposed changes, and we disagree with them. So typical of you PvP based **** (can't say that it is against the rules) people play my way or get out. As you keep screaming this is a sandbox game and that simply means that ALL play styles the rules allow are valid not just the ones you approve of. Please note the words "rules allow" as they are critical and when/if CCP ever changes the rules then we will all have to adjust.


You have no rights to limit the the legal game play of anyone else. Using the rules of the game you can attempt to do so, war decs, ganking etc but outside of those things allowed by the rules you have no right to dictate game play style. All you have is the same thing we do, and that is the right to petition CPP through these forums for things you think may be good for the game.

There is nothing in CCP's published stats that indicate that the PvE play style is "poison" to the game or to player retention.
They would indicate an area of concern but without further data it is not possible to draw a real conclusion.
How many of these PvE players left due to real life issues?
But the most important question is really this one. If those players had been PvP would those real life issues still required them to leave the game?
How many of those players quit because CCP is so buried in PvP changes that they are largely ignoring the needed changes to contiue to engage those interested in PvE?

But following your logic that anything that causes players to quit is "poison" and should be removed from the game nul sec would be right at the top of things that needed to go. Nul sec has been losing subscribers at a very high rate over the last few years due to it's stagnation and lack of interesting game play. I do not see CCP ever getting rid of nul sec as it is core to the game, and likewise I do not see CCP ever getting rid of the PvE play style since it is just as core to the game.

Last thoughts.
I have been in this game for more than 5 years and as I posted in another topic on this forum I have essentially always been PvE. Tried the PvP thing in low and nul and was bored out of my mind and nearly quit. Then I got smart started this character moved to high sec and only do PvE things and I have never been happier and I have no desire to quit, unless CCP gets idiotic and changes the rules to the point that I cannot play this sandbox game MY way.

Player retention is about engaging your player base within the context of the game and it's rules. Keeping players engaged and wanting to play is the key element not HOW they play so in a way CCP is responsible for that low player retention by largely ignoring the PvE aspects of the game.

There are probably only two things I'd consider seeing nerfed about wardecs. Already discussed is the ability for defenders to end a war throuhg some means. More controversial is the topic quoted above. I'd like to see more precision in target selection.

I'm not sure what CCP was thinking with raising the war cost from 2m to 50m. One competent trader can still fund 100 wars a week for his alliance. The problem with ISK determining war viability is wealth discrepancy. If there intentions were to limit wardecs through cost it's failed.

If you want to limit wardeccing against small groups go with a points system. You get 1000 wardec points. The size of the attacking corp doesn't matter. Wardeccing a large bloc alliance would cost 1 point. Wardeccing a small corp would cost 100 points. One-hundred-fifty man alliance would be 50 points. Joining as defender would cost no points. The result is that mercenaries can wardec 1000 Goonswarms but only 10 Joe Industries' (as well as any wars they are hired to defend in). The reason for the extremely low point cost on mega alliances is so the new system has a negligible affect on them. The points are meant to ease the burden on smaller, presumably less defended entities.
The numbers are open for discussion but you get the point.

Whether this is actually needed is questionable though. If you can end wars as the defender through some means you already potentially achieve the goal of target selection precision. It becomes impossible to maintain 100 wardecs if they are all willing to do what it takes to 'win' the war. The converse would be true too. If you implement the above without a mechanic for defenders to win wars, defenders can still 'win' a war against mercenaries through blue balling as wardec points are too precious to waste on non-content. It may be the case that the two nerfs I've discussed here - winnable wars for defenders and wardec points - overlap, are overkill, and only one is necessary.

I cannot and will not support that though until war evasion is looked after. If we are going to limit wardec numbers the wardecs that are active have to be meaningful and deliver content. Part of that onus is on the attacking corp to pick targets that will undock. CCP look to be helping address this by adding meaningful structures that players will want to defend. Equally the onus is on ensuring that ducking out of the wardec has severe consequences. Corporations have to be a commitment. Industrial players measure everything in ISK/hr so leaving corp under these conditions has to significantly reduce your ISK earning potential.

The wardec system is not going to be balanced until both sides of the equation give up certain sacred cows.

As of this time last year, the current rules allowed for ISBotter, too.

Things change, and that's what I'm here arguing for.





Ha ha, get with it, my friend. Your blithe excuses to try and disqualify the data are painfully transparent.



Wrong again.

How is quite clearly relevant, according to the data. And right now, the game's new player experience pushes people towards exactly the wrong activity. To make it worse, the current ruleset of highsec enables that to far too large an extent.

Both of those things will change, shortly. Whether your kind likes it or not, you cannot hold the game hostage anymore.

I suggest holding off on any wardec ballance issues until after the structure changes. You will probably find that wardecs feel more useful, and more organic after structure changes hit highsec.

I think highsec wardec could then be molded more into a method to shift structure control in highsec than how can I grief other players.