Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Of course there will be. You people will never stop until CCP either removes PvE from this game and kicks your asses out, or you have killed EVE with your space justice whoring. Just like was predicted during the deletion of awoxing, you won't stop until there is no PvP anymore.

Your goal is Trammel, always has been.

It says a core concept. CONCEPT. Not a genre defining attribute. What it's saying is that CCP accommodates PVP avenues but doesn't force PVP, it's all a matter of choice.





So aggressors don't have locator agents? They don't have out of corp alts/off grid boosters/spies/scout/logistics(both repping and hauling)/bumpers? Invincible would imply that ganks and WT kills never happen, which isn't the case.

Again, you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. That's par for the course, but nonetheless is still damning.

The alliance I was with did not once fold or roll corps to avoid a wardec. We were once decced by Marmite for months straight. But then, they were a real corp, not some bunch of worthless miners looking to avoid taxes. Owned a wormhole for a long time, daily roams into lowsec, poco bashes and fleet fights every week.

Marmite did not give them much trouble, aside from picking off afk miners here and there, which made many of us just laugh. I wish that all the carebear corps would die in a fire, and more corps and alliances were like the ROC.

War mechanics are only a hindrance to the kind of people who don't belong in a player corp to begin with.




And you're really reaching to try and find a dismissal. Only reason to do that is if you realize that you've lost. But you lost long ago, you just didn't realize it.

This isn't a fleet fight... This is the forums.

The goal here isn't to win or lose, it's provide viable feedback on the topic at hand.

All you've done is say "No" because it doesn't suit you.

You could have done that in one comment, with 6 words and been done with it.

Instead, you continue to derail the conversation with you babbling on... whatever.... and then claim that you have or haven't made certain comments, despite haven't or having made said comments.

Troll on..

Every player, in every corp, with every alliance, in every region of Eve, has taken and continues to take advantage of the security provided in high sec.


Have you and/or your corp/alliance ever used an NPC/out of corp alt for any means of activity done in highsec?
Of course y'all have... Your bumpers, guards, and looters are all out of corp alts.


Sure, reduce the safety of HS... but I have a strong feeling it's gonna have a lot less effect on me and mine than it will those large entities of Eve.
When/if that happens, we'll see who's crying about high sec security then..

Oh, the irony.

Thanks for that, by the way, you just killed your side's entire argument.

It IS CCP's game. And they say that EVE Online is a full time PvP game in a sandbox environment, where wars and suicide ganking are working as intended. This has been stated repeatedly, often on these very forums.

Bye bye now.

Our side came with suggestions, not arguments.

You have done nothing but argue against change without any merit as to why it shouldn't change, other than obviously suggesting that the current system is favorable for you.

However, it's odd that you would neither suggest nor indulge suggestions of change, despite having said yourself that the wardec mechanic is broken.. Though, I will note that you claim it's broken in favor of the defender.

That said, you have also suggested that the current war dec mechanic is fine.. Soo, it's hard to gauge where you stand on this topic in general.

Funny thing is, you claim war decs are fine yet provide no feedback as to why.

Then, you claim they're broken in favor of the defender, and again provide no feedback as to why.

You also state that using a destroy-able structure would not balance the system, and the only feeback as to why is "immunity" to wardecs despite having no feedback as to why.

And, you again state that my last suggestion would discourage PVP, and yet again, have provided no feedback as to why.

You also show your distaste for PVE centric players, despite this avenue of gameplay being perfectly viable based on their implementation, which only goes to show that you would never consider, indulge, critique, nor probably even read suggestions that would give said players any chance at retaining their playstyle of choice, even if said suggestion would promote PVP involvement outside of your preferred method of engagement..... In other words, you want them to die as much as possible to your war dec and do not want them to fight back, especially when said fighting could potentially lead to loss on your end.

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

We are not trying to determine the balance of the game, but merely giving suggestions on alternatives that could be an option.


Yet again, you claim you've provided Intel on what you is wrong with the system (or isn't as you've claimed both) yet provide no evidence of said Intel. I've read everyone of you comments since I became involved in this thread and not one of them has provided anything that I mentioned in my above comment.

Furthermore, I am perfectly fine with losing. However, I am not ok with no chance of winning.
Not losing a ship is not winning, as the war dec itself would have hendered my preferred method of gameplay for a given time.
Winning would be me having the ability to stop said war dec early and go about what I enjoy doing, without having to leave corp and/or meet the insanely high surrender demand.

And yes, I do want to nerf other people's play styles if those play styles present no balance in which I have the opportunity to stop their attempt at ruining my preferred play style.
The difference being, you want to nerf high sec entirely to suit you play style. I, on the other hand, only wish to balance a system that hinders my preferred play style in favor of someone else's play style being imposed upon me, and provides me little to no means of counter acting that could potentially benefit my play style. (Ie getting back to PVE sooner).


At anytime, in any system, in any sec status, you are free to impose you play style upon me.
However, I have methods of which to circumvent this, such as not falling for attempts to draw aggression, taking alternate routes of travel, tanking up and relying on CONCORD intervention, warping out if possible, etc etc.

However, war decs allow you to circumvent my options of avoiding aggression, thus further imposing your play style on me.

That said, what I am attempting to do is provide a balance war mechanic that will still allow you to impose your play style on me, but give me the chance at reward via returning to my preferred activity, if I'm willing to play along with your play style and indulge you for a while and do so with better performance than you.
I'm also trying to suggest an option that would force you to fight the war you started so that you don't run scared and hide in a station when I present myself as a capable opponent, and riding the war dec mechanic as long as possible in order to keep me from my preferred play style, while not performing your play style that you imposed upon me.
In other words, if I'm willing to fight back and you're not, then I should be given the opportunity to go back to what I enjoy, as your ineptitude has shown you incapable of performing your play style to Which you imposed upon me.

I'm sure you likely don't see that as balance, but that because you have flat out said that you do not like players with this preferred play style and are unwilling to give them any chance of returning to said play style until you have grown bored of your imposition.

See, I suggest balance, you suggest your way or gtfo...

Lol.. again, picking the parts of my comment to which you can counter, yet not actually countering them.
This has been your mantra then entire time.

If I have an opportunity to make the dec disappear, and that opportunity is presented via the engagement in PVP, then I should have the ability of having an outcome that is preferable to me, if my performance surpasses that of my opponent.
...And, you should be able to continue your imposition on me, if your performance surpasses that of my own.

And dec dodging is no longer possible, i might add.


It's funny how you feel that me actually engaging in PVP, thus indulging the purpose of the wardec, should have no benefit to me.

If that's the case, then why should I undock? Why should I be in a corp?

If you attempt to suicide gank me, or catch me out in low/null, you likely have done so because you feel I am easy prey.
That is also the case in war decs.

However, in the case of suicide ganks and getting caught, there is potential for me to win that scenario, which would have a favorable outcome for me, allowing me to continue doing what I was doing, and possibly getting a shiny KM out of it.

Why then should there be no potential for me to win a war dec, and have a favorable outcome to me?


You're either not getting the point that in order for us to win a war dec, we would have to outright defeat you in ship to ship combat (PVP(the point of the war dec))
or
You simply do not want to provide us with a means of getting out of the war, even if that means is involvement in the war, because that would mean you're presented with a means to lose the war.

You're looking at war as if it's intended for one side to engage and that one side is the only one that can win.
If that were the case, WW1, WW2, and many other wars would have gone very differently.

It's obvious that you still haven't read my last suggestion, which involved no structure bashing, or entosis.

Therefore, every statement you have made beyond that point is invalid, as it does not consider the topic at hand.

Furthermore, it goes even further to show that you have no intent on having a discussion (despite being on a discussion forum) and are only here to ensure that no opportunity is given to present the defender with a balanced mechanic.