Player Features and Ideas Discussion

(tl;dr I dont give a flying scalp. My long posts are exactly to avoid those who wont read it.) After reading the miriad of posts answering the OP in the consistent manner you expect in this forum, and comparing to discussions in other forums, the first thing I say to the OP is that you are posting in the wrong forum. Here people are just driven to defend the very idea you are attacking by no logical means. They just assume a posture of "the game is what I want it to be", and therefore, what favors them is just natural, while everything else is just wrong.

That being said, I have a proposal for answer. How about look it to the other side ?

First, you dont EVER need to bother about wardec system, and that is one way it may have to change in order to be what people say it is. In Reddit it is used to be defined as "bribing concord to look the other way when you do what they are there for preventing". That pretty much summs it. It is a cost effective way to conduct actions in Hisec the low sec is for.

Wardec as it is do not enhance pvp, it prevents it. The human being is hardwired to achieve equilibrium. Null sec is the proof of that being applyed to EVE. The wardec system promotes the pvp by unmatched parties as for matched parties there is no need for it.

At this point you may be thinking that the unmatching parties I talk about is the poor industrial or hauler and the merc corp, and I am not. I am talking about the mechanics that let corps ONLY prey on people who are unprepared to face it.

A veteran non-combat corporation or alliance is well aware of the threat, and it is really useless to wardec those. A veteran combat corp of hisec is well aware of the threat, and it is really worse for the aggressor to wardec those. The combat veteran corp will just go and blob the corp, because no big corp will EVER randomly wardec someone, or pay someone to. A non-combat corporation will never expose its needed undock runners for wardecs.

As the combat side of the skeewed perspective of wardec is hardly complicated, it is just it: You wardec a corp you dont know, you get blobbed, you get mutualized, allied, and that is pretty much all there is to it. Lose a bunch of ships, a bunch of money and come in the forums cry that no one knows what "fair solo pvp is". End'o'story.

A veteran non-combat corp like ourselves (and doing it right now) just keep docked management getting missions, moving merchandise, managing orders, and what not, while the moveable part of the corporation is descentralized in mobile units that can change corps at will and make you just spend money in wardecs. You can even outsource entire parts of your management to third parties, and still having your corp name in the checks. It is really amazing.

What you get is that the effectiveness of wardecs in instruments of forcing people to pvp ONLY works for unexperienced unskilled players. ALL others, including the non-combat ones, are off the hook.

When you come here to the forum and try to impress your idea that wardec function as some sort of "that is eve on your grass", you are just showing how inexperienced you are.

And as a experienced trader and very observing person, I see that most of it will change drastically soon.
I really think that the hisec easy pvp have outlived its peak already.

There is absolutely nothing in your sentence remotely related to what you quoted.

There is absolutely nothing in your sentence that argues or answers anything else you did not quoted.

Since Eve is a full-time, shooty PvP sandbox game, shouldn't it be easy to engage in shooty PvP in highsec?

Eve isnot a full-time shooty PVP sandbox game.

It's a full-time PVP CENTRIC game with combat elements.

The market is pvp - you compete against other players to sell and/or buy goods.
Mining is PVP - you compete with other players to mine the best roids and the minerals are put onto the market in some way.
Missioning is PVP - The bounties you collect go towards the market.
Salvaging is PVP
Exploration is PVP
Moon mining is PVP

It's all PVP because you're competing with other players in one way or another.
Eve is not "kill everything that moves" PVP.



Now, on to the topic of the wardec system suggested in OP.
There's plenty of flaws that can, and probably have, been dug up on this.

With that in mind, here are pointers of what's wrong with the current wardec system.

1) It's cheaper to wardec small groups than large ones, which leads to up-starts failing before they can get off the ground through force and not their own failings.

2) It favors use against those who are deemed weak and is not used for the intended purpose of conflict resolution. IE, Alliance A wants to shut down alliance B and take their SOV, so they wardec in order to stop their HS supply chain.

3) There is no incentive for the defender to fight, unless they just want to fight.

4) There is no incentive for the attacker to fight, unless the situation is HEAVILY in their favor.

5) The only way to end a wardec (for the defender) is dissolving corp, meeting surrender terms(which is typically made near impossible to meet specifically so they can't do so), and boring the attacker into removal of wardec.

6) The defender cannot fight back in order to win the war, as it has no effect on the war, and the attacker will typically not engage targets that are ready to fight. They'd prefer to catch that lone target.

7) The system heavily favors the use of alts for observation, logistics, and target management.

8) The system favors fighting on gates and stations, leading to the attacker docking/jumping when the situation no longer favors them.



Now, here are some questions that have been raised through out this, and many other war threads that I would like to address.

1) Why should it be easier/cheaper to wardec a large entity using less numbers?
A) because they're taking risks in picking a fight against the bigger guy. B) If you're going to make yourself a large target by having large numbers and hold SOV/WH/low space, then you better be ready to fight off people that want to make your life harder and/or take your stuff.

2) Why should smaller entities be protected?
Because those smaller entities are what can possibly grow to challenge the status quo of other large entities.
If we protect large entities more than small, we're allowing the large entity to control the game.
Take for instance when the Goons and Test shut down Gallente HS mining for a long time.

3) Why should the defender have any options other than surrender?
Because having a system that does not provide the defender with incentive to fight is counter intuitive to the purpose of war, which is PVP.

4) Why should the attacker be forced to fight when the situation does not suit them?
I'll answer this with a question. Why should they be allowed to pick a fight they're not willing to fight and have no repercussions?

5) Why should something be introduced that forces fights off of stations and gates?
The same reason CCP is introducing new SOV mechanics. To enforce commitment instead of allowing people to simply bail out when they don't want to lose.

6) Why should HS be safer?
This doesn't make HS safer. a simple calculation would probably tell you that isk value is lost/trades hands via suicide ganks than wardecs. It doesn't make HS safer so much as it would make wardecs more meaningful/impacting.


7) This is a sand box game; Why shouldn't I be allowed to play how I want to play?
Because your player freedom is no more important than the freedom of other players. You are forcing YOUR preferred play style onto another person and they should have tools provided that will give them the opportunity to do what they what, provided the indulge you and outperform you at your own game.

8) Why does any incentive need to be given to either side?
Because defenders can never "WIN" a war in the current system, even if they have demolished the attacker.
And because most attackers will not fight the war they started, if the situation does not suit them with overpowering odds, yet they're free to keep the wardec going as long as they want in order to pick off stragglers and/or force surrender/closing of defending entity.



The system favors the attacker, pvp aversion, targeting small entities, NPC corps, targeting based on ease of kills, and non-interaction.
All of which are claims made, that hinder Eve Online, by the very people who refuse any changes to the wardec system.

I'm willing to be that you'd be surprised how many people would become more interactive, and eventually more involved in PVP, if the wardec mechanics were balanced.
Much like with the comments made on this very thread regarding Null sec, it's the lack of a conflict driver that hurts this system the most. Why fight when doing nothing is better?

I'm glad you think you're funny, but the statement is true.
Cacao has stated that since everything you do in Eve can have a potential effect on other players, everything has a pvp aspect.

This, they refer to Eve as PVP Centric. But not a pvp game as others have tried to say.

Some consideration on points that deserve it:

- EVE market is pvp and that do not equals it to wow market being pvp, because in WoW you have a non-player driven economy. In EVE you have to deal with players for many itens. In WoW anything you can buy from players you can buy from npcs. Anything. Jewels, armor, etc. And now more than ever, as they are moving from some years to the opposite direction, by adding better and cheaper (timewise) npc sold gear. Even pvp gear will be possible to buy from doing PVE, using non tradeable currency.

- The thing about EVE is people know it is a sandbox but treat it as if it wasnt. I dont need to go from Hi to Low and then Null as progression. EVE has no progression. Hi, Low and Null sec are distinct gameplay experiences for different kinds of people. The same applies for what you do and the "place you live".

- Build on the ledge created by the mentality above, people create an umbrella concept of pvp that they define as they please and use as they please. Unfortunately, PvP has a definition, and has a definition in EVE material. So you cant just argue using your own definition of PvP. You may, but it is just nonsense.

- Repeating what other experienced players say, and I do so myself, Null can be safer than hisec, exactly due to wardec and concord response times. In null you are part of the blue lagoon, you can be in your place, you will be warned about invasions, you can setup your own response time and response protocol. You may know right away people who are dangerous and not. And you are sure to be in a place where people likeminded are there. The risky part of null is a choice you make. In hisec you are in a NPC space from a NPC corp that has no will or protocols to create a safety net for you. You are in a space where money replace numbers, and the same system that protects you protects the people who want to harm you. In null you may be the target of pvp, but that is not the only condition. In hisec, you are potentially the target of pvp from people who have more to earn than lose by violating the rules, or those who have money to bribe the empire protection. Most null corps cant be bribed, at least not cheap, to allow people to kill their members. Null Corps wont treat the people who could help the same way they treat the people who attacked someone of theirs. Null corps dont just say "You are an enemy of XXXX, leave now or be destroyed" and do nothing while enemies roam their space. Null corps wont accept a couple killmails of enemies to restore their neutral condition to you. So yeah, there is leverage to make pvp harder in hisec.

joe, i'm well aware of PvP and its boundaries, but EVE's most defining form of PvP is combat. EVE is a game designed around the dynamic of building sandcastles and knocking over someone elses sandcastle, whether you knock them down by out competing on the market, theft, sabotage or taking a torpedo and ramming it into their homes. ALL are left open to the players to decide with as little restriction as possible, yes including highsec.

That is the very most core element of this game.

I am all for giving the defender the option to destroy a structure and end decs. It gives the defenders a meaningful choice between exposing themselves to PvP in order to end the dec early or continuing to evade (or fight) as normal.

Oh, don't get me wrong.
I am in no way suggesting that PVP in HS should be harder to come by, or saying HS should be "safer".

I'm simply stating that the current wardec system is F'd up and favors picking weak targets, not fighting when the situation doesn't suit you, and using neutral aid.

There's all this talk of "risk vs reward" being thrown around all the time, yet no on equates that to the wardec system.

You pick a weak target for easy kills, you have nothing to lose by starting a wardec apart from a small amount of isk that can be recovered in 1 hour, it's cheaper to wardec small targets, etc. etc. etc..

I have no problem with suicide ganking.
I also have no problem with wardecs existing, but in its current form, it is little more than a get out of jail free card.

That is only because almost all the targets have moved to highsec because it is so lucrative for how safe it is. The risk vs. reward balance of highsec has been so out of whack for so long, the other spaces have been depleted of targets. Most veterans have moved back to highsec (or set up alts in highsec) long ago.

It is obviously easier to shoot someone in a wormhole say. You lock the target and you press F1. In highsec you have to either do some calculations to make sure you can kill your target in 5-to-20s and be willing to sacrifice your ship, or plan 24 hours in advance and part with 50M ISK.

But this is besides my main point. You are suppose to be able to shoot players everywhere. There is no such thing as "too easy PvP", even in highsec. There is just PvP.

I'm not saying HS shouldn't allow PVP, I'm simply stating that the wardec mechanics favor "easy mode" which is counter-intuitive to the very risk vs reward you speak of..

Also, you make it seem as if suicide ganking is extremely difficult.
You state calculations as if this is time consuming, yet it is often done on the fly to great effect; And even if you do fail the first attempt, you can just have your neutral keep bumping the target until the fleet aggression timer has worn down.



That is not due to risk vs reward.
There is plenty of reward to be had in low/null/wh space.
The issue is that the incentive is not there.
It's also worth mentioning that systems outside HS are intended to be competitive, yet there's really no reason to compete apart from claiming your little spot in space.


I find it funny that people complain about the safety of HS, yet they take full advantage of that system themselves.
Yet turn around and blame it on HS, ignoring the fact that the reason they are in HS is because there's no incentive to be outside of HS.
The entertainment value isn't there, so stay in HS and earn isk a good bit slower, and use it to fund your ship losses.

Lets say you remove incursions from HS. Well, no one will go to low/null to chase them down, they'll just revert back to lvl 4 missions.
Then you remove lvl 4 missions from HS. Players will start mining.
So you nerf mining, and players will start running lvl 3 missions. Only now, they loot and salvage because due to lvl 4's being removed, that loot and salvage becomes more valuable.

You're not going to fix the system by making HS less fun, you're going to have to make everything else more fun.