Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Agreed, handicapping either side will simply put that side off engaging.

That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps.

It is a problem when you try to force people into it. Players need to engage in it not be forced. This isn't me being pedantic, if players do not want to do something they will find a way to avoid it even if that means unsub and play something else. I would rather make being in a player corp give better benefits and therefore better incentive to fight. Tie the incentives to the corp structures to make that unavoidable and those willing to fight will start to do so. They need an incentive to do so though.

This is a terrible idea. Why should rich and established players be made immune to the wardecs that now the poorer and newer corporations will be now forced to suffer? ISK tanking proposal like these mean that wardeccers will just be directed to go after newer and smaller (that is poorer) corps, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging and what your proposal probably is trying to encourage.

Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs. If anything, wardec fees should be lowered, at least for small, non-mercenary corps, so they can actually use the mechanic to settle scores with other small corps and get used to the idea of PvP in a controlled environment as wardecs were initially intended.

But really, unless the drop-reform hole is plugged in some way (as Mag's said above), the point is moot as no (smallish) corp will pay as they can dodge the war for just the million ISK corporation fee rather than 100M ISK to counter-bribe CONCORD.

I think your heart is in the right place (at least I hope it is), but this is just a terrible suggestion which will do nothing to make wardecs more engaging, meaningful or fun. It would just allow players to isolate themselves further from the sandbox , the exact opposite of the direction CCP claims to want to take the game.

The little corps would still get screwed by not having the bank roll to keep making counter bribes. Meaning they'd be pissing money away to no avail, which is actually worse than the current system. Right now they can stay docked and lose nothing. But the newer corps may actually try to pay to stop the dec and find themselves worse off. Not to mention I'd assume once the timer has worn off and the defender won the bid war it would create a timer in which that aggressing corp would be unable to start a new dec against them fro a short time. Which means hello alt corps time to continue the harassment.


I'd suggest something similar to what you put forth that would actually be really good and much more fair to the smaller entity.

War decs paid out based number of individuals within corp/alliance being ignored or defended by concord.
-Decking as a small corp would be relatively inexpensive as your paying concord off to ignore a small number of people and vice versa.
-Bribing concord to protect your small corp would be relatively cheaper because they are having to give extra care to fewer people, again vice versa.

Bribe concord to protect you from wars for normal war dec duration.
-Entity A is willing to pay x amount per player within their corp/alliance to stall war decs from any other entity for say... 2 weeks.
-Entity B,C,D must pay a combined x per player to remove this protection, then the new standard fee z for creating the war dec.
-Entity A must now pay z to nullify the wardec and the cycle continues.


The newer corps would still would get screwed due to bank roll in the long run. But to keep war deccing a small corp or alliance would cost the larger one many times more in the bid/counter bid process due to it being based on member count of the bidding corp. However, I like the idea of a buy-out feature for the smaller new player corps. As long as the initial compounding penalties hit the aggressor first, then the "defender" then it seems balanced.


EDIT: Throw in there that recruitment during wartime would be unavailable for both corps (at least decing corp) to prevent gaming the system with low cost wars, then massive recruitment.

Guys who here thinks wars instead of being nerfed could use an incentive?

I know its a crazy idea but read me out first. I proposed some weeks ago a change to high-sec/low-sec and some other tweaks to corps and wars that would follow as a result. Instead of taking 1 more reason away for a war lets add a reason for a war. The idea was basically add a structure that represented control over a constellation giving bonuses to ISK/Material generating activities while slightly nerfing NPC corps to compensate for the increased amount of ISK/LP coming into the game. Basically drive one PvE focused corp to want to fight for control of a constellation or a better constellation then the one they currently have. There were some other changes too to balance this all out. If your interested in discussing changes to wars and high-sec this has been a passion of mine for well over a year now and I really think with the null-sec changes and the entosis link this finally represents a way to pull it off.

Chance I'm gonna mail you a link so as to not hijack your thread and if you have some free time to discuss it I would really like to talk to someone on the CSM about this

To flesh out my post. I think that Concord destroying ships that commit unsanctioned violent acts in High Security space is a really poor mechanic. I also think war decs are a bad mechanic. I would prefer to see consequences flow to the actual human controlling the ship as much as possible. Ship loss, via deus ex machina, is a poor mechanic. It does not allow a defender to launch a preemptive strike. Nor does it actually deter a significant amount of the space violence in High Security space - it just dictates which hulls are most useful for space violence.

My premises:
1. Space violence is good.
2. No space should be totally safe.
3. Safety should come from player enforcement mechanisms as much as possible, not from NPC's or deus ex machina.
4. Space violence should have more consequences in High Sec than in lower security space.
5. Space violence should have consequences that actually affect the player.

With that said... here goes:

Start with the safety setting.

1. Green = safety is on in High Sec and Low Sec. With the safety set to green, you cannot intentionally attack any other player in High Sec or Low Sec space.* Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec or Low Sec space.

If you are in High Sec space, while in Green mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player.

2. Yellow = With the safety set to yellow, you cannot initiate combat with any other player in High Sec - you can still respond in self-defense.* You are still free to initiate combat in Low Sec. Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec space, but not in Low Sec.

If you are in High Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Red or Green , you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

If you are in Low Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Green or Red , you automatically lose lock without incurring any aggression. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

3. Red = safety is off. With the safety set to red, you can shoot any other player at any time, in any space. There will be no security status penalty if anyone shoots at you while you are in Red mode.

In High Sec or Low Sec space, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on a person who is set to Red, unless you are also set to Red. If your remote repair target changes their status from Red to Green or Yellow, you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

Once you push the red button, you cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, eject from your ship in High Sec, switch to another ship in High Sec, or safely log off in High Sec. The button has a twenty minute cool down period. The cool down period ends automatically if your ship is destroyed. You can still use High Sec gates, jump drive out of High Sec, or use a wormhole.

* - To protect the unwary new player: Without turning off the safety, you cannot accidentally attack another player in High Sec space, except with an Area of Effect weapon. Appropriate warning messages pop-up when you equip an Area of Effect weapon (warning can be turned off).

If you want to have a duel with someone, you can still do that, without having to set the safety to red. You just have to go through the normal dueling procedures.

As for loss of security status effects, unsanctioned attacks would be defined as follows:
High Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status substantially
Low Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status minimally; Yellow on Green lowers security status minimally
Null Sec: anything goes

As your security status goes lower, you should face more severe effects. Not wedded to these numbers, but something like this:

-2 and below: cannot place buy/sell orders in High Sec stations, make or accept contracts in High Sec, trade in High Sec stations. -5% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-4 and below: cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, or safely log off in High Sec. -10% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-6 and below: cannot board a ship in High Sec space (have to board in Low or Null). Safety is always Red. -15% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-8 and below: cannot send ISK to another player, receive ISK from another player. -20% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-10: cannot use High Sec gates (can still enter or leave through a wormhole). -25% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.

Security status can only be raised by turning in pirate faction (minimal gain) and those special commander tags (substantial gain). Get rid of all war declarations. Any player can fight any player, but there are consequences.

I have tried to anticipate as many ways to abuse this as I can, but I am only one person. If you spot an exploit, I'd love to flesh out the idea more. Thoughts?

Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos.

Oh, so it's just another banal iteration of "kick pirates out of highsec"? Tch, I had hoped for better than that tired old trope.

So small poor corps continue to get decced, and rich ones can just buy safety?