Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To try to get those 1 pvper per corp together, perhaps an anti(agressor corp) chat window automatically pops up to connect yo when you have been dec'd. Not a nerf, you can find Allies, and fight. Of course that doesn't help the op, but ships blowing up are more important than a small corp.

Your only real safety from wars are npc corps, it might be best to write off the corp and just hang with former corpies as friends. Try the corp thing again when you have expanded your circle.

Just about everything has already been said in this thread, but OP on this bit, your assumption isn't necessarily correct.

The devblog from the 2012 changes to wardecs:



So providing a viable career path for dedicated mercenary corps was exactly one of the key guidelines CCP used when designing the current system.

Those Corps are quite successful and if they have a lot of wars, it's as much because they are good at what they do (and so get hired a lot) as it is anything else.

Since we're quoting this thing:

Q: War dec cost, number of aggressor wars.
A: The number of wars the declaring corp has still modifies the cost.

Can someone from guardians (I like and trust them) tell me what this is? Specifically how does the number of wars modify the cost? Back in the day it was crazy steep and 100 active decs would be impossible financially - especially over the long haul. Does cost go up w/ each successive war dec?

There is one major fundamental truth at work here, no matter which side of this debate you are on CCP has to protect your rights to play a game you pay for but they also have to protect the rights of every one on the other side as well.

We can do this, we can have a better system, a system that works better for everyone, but we CANNOT do it as long as both sides refuse to give up anything and therein lies the challenge before us. So in that light here are a few thoughts.

Pauses briefly to put on Kevlar and Nomex protective suits.

Aggressors first.
Are you willing to give up some of your freedoms to WD whoever, whenever for whatever reason in exchange for a reduction in the dodge options?
How about a limit on active WD, are you willing to accept a limit again in exchange for a reduction in dodge options?

Defenders.
Are you willing to give up some of your dodge options in exchange for more restrictions on the whoever, whenever and for whatever reason aspect?
Are you willing to give up some of the dodge options for a limit on the number of active WD a corp can have?

No. Wars are weak enough as it is, they need buffed.

And you especially don't get to strip away yet more player freedom to justify finally removing a very literal exploit.

Carebear tears. It was previously classified as the exploit it is, until enough tears flipped that over. That's fairly well known, the carebear penchant for denial notwithstanding.




It consists of screwing around with the corp creation mechanics to deliberately bypass the surrender function, the stated and intended method of dissolving wardecs, and it does so with much, much less cost than the mechanic it bypasses.

Textbook exploit, regardless of my opinion on the matter, or yours.

To put it a better way. Was POS bowling an exploit before CCP started banning people for it, or after? It always was, it was just a matter of when they decided to start enforcing it.




And I reject that premise. Wardecs right now are too weak, they need buffed. Not only this, but highsec non consensual PvP, meaning both ganking and wars, has recently been determined to be THE biggest factor(s) in positive player retention.

This mandates buffing wars, ganking, or preferably both, to incentivize, encourage, and proliferate PvP content in highsec. Yes, this will result in a net loss of safety for the kind of people who would rather not bother playing the game at their keyboards. And they'll just have to suck it up, like they've told the highsec PvP playstyle to suck it up for the past decade.

What's good for the goose is finally about to be good for the gander, once CCP grows the spine to take a sledgehammer to the sacred cows of Concord and NPC corps. And just like those mealy mouthed fucks have been falsely claiming for the past decade, we'll tell them "the game will be better off." Except this time, it will actually be true, not just a lie they tell themselves to justify squelching player freedom in a sandbox game.

Could be wrong, but Jester suggested it wasn't carebear, as much as ganker that made the request for Inferno: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2012/06/total-war.html?m=1

Also, we were dec'd by PE, but meh, needed skill training anywsys.

Had. Maybe. Timing sure was convenient.

A "clearly broken mechanic got fixed", coincidentally when it stood to effect gander types the most.

I know better than to expect empathy/sympathy, as it's doubtful you recall how "fun" it is to lose ships by being so horribly outclassed. I find it rather disappointing that it's a "bug that got fixed" when it effects you positively, but it's the fault of those damned "carebears" when you just want to punch people working with a handicap be it SP or numbers related. I'd be A-OK with a "social corp" being implemented.

But that would cut into the ganker's "fun", so I doubt CCP would consider it.

It is funny how long people can still amass the principle of "the game must be played the way I want".

The wardec problem is not the wardec, it is the possible uses of it.

First and foremost, the average solo-pvp-combat-preying-on-the-weak-not-capable-of-attacking-those-who-can-fight-back usually use the argument that EVE is a niche game, and bla bla. Yes, EVE online is a niche game, and it is not for you.

The way things are show that CCP has a special place in design to minimize the oportunities of that specific gameplay, which are put in place activelly, not because of lack of choice, so that is the reasonable background to show that this gameplay is not without counters.

While on the subject, you must also remember: CCP is a corporations, full of very capable people, which do not do things because they are forced by this or that group of players. Their professionalism today is the result of bad experiences in the past. Internal investigations on GM corruption, exploits used to generate equivalent of thousand of dollars if converted to plex cost, and many internal political aspects that rose entirely new mechanics to avoid meta exploitation of simple and harmless flaws that combined could ruin the game. We do not reached this place in EVE today just because "CCP thinks it is all cool".

Second, the concept of EVE deppends on the existance of all kinds of players attracked by, and tolerant to, all its aspects of it. to ensure the so called sandbox player driven motif. You may not like some, I may not like some, but EVE is a niche game, and the niche game is not a specific type of gameplay. That is not niche. People use the term niche game without the regard of understand what it refeers to.

The thing runs both ways, and that is something usually Caldari States and Emarrian people lack the will to understand:

- If it is a free for all game universe, the same right you have to get people to do something you want, the people has to deny you from it. If it is sandbox, there must be equal chance to do and not to do something. Any time something is made so it cannot be avoided, it is a step away from sandbox concept. I have the democratic freedom to not want democracy, and all democratic people must respect that, otherwise you just an hypocritical dictator youself.

- Risk cannot be generated by mechanics, it is only generated by people. "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" you Caldari States people like to say and hear. Wardec is not the problem, as the means to avoid it arent either. The problem is the right equilibrium of both. The fact that people go to a lenght to avoid, or to do, either shows how people are inclined as a mass to do one or another. Changing to prevail one wont get more players, will just change the playerbase to a fraction of what equilibrium would. The number of players is a complex result derived from what X like and Y tolerate in order to have X + Y. If you go too much for either side, you are not adding, you are subtracting. If you go beyond what Y tolerate, you lose Y, and you are not likely to rise X enough to compensate that, as most of what X want deppends on the existance of Y. So you can argue all you want, you are wrong on saying that narrowing the possibilities widen the player interest. It never do. Most people know that, CCP knows that.

- If you get rid of low risk play, PvE content that count on low risk of PVP interference, and so on, you pvp nut will be the more negativelly impacted by it. People who do not do senseless PVP wont start doing just because they have lost other options. You know what will happen, because it already does. Those you call carebears will not stop being carebears, they will just be forced to unite, to make the game offer what it stop offering. So you will see more blobs, more blue sea, more diplomacy, more risk management, more community effort, more back scratching. Most of the so called "oh-so-elite-pvp" forget to think about is that the low risk and apparent comfort of the "other players" is what makes them scatter and your puny mercenary corp of 10 people thrive. As soon as risk start to be the way you want, the people who cant work together will rage quit, and the ones who dont, a lot, will just put aside petty differences that can turn them appart in a nice environment. It is the basic human nature. If nothing worse, all your "oh honor of the war" demands just will make EVE less of a battleground and more a fortress of different people united to a broader goal. IF that is what you want, then I am all for CCP doing exactly what you say.

- Building on the previous, "people dont change". I will not start being a selfish "I am the best pvper" going around picking fights until I have no ISK to buy new ships person just because that is what EVE is getting me to. I will adapt to get on with the thing I do in a growing demotivating environment until such day it is impossible and I will move on. It is too much of making EVE a real world like you like to say we do, to think that personality will change for a game.

In short, I am all for those changes myself. Make it a dangerous risky cheap warzone of every corner of EVE, That wont make the game bigger tho, but smaller. That will not make all eve players to become foolish hot headed fighters, just make bigger groups band together to exterminate those. If it is the end of the gameplay you love so much your goal, please, by all means, knock yourselves out.

Edit: When I said it already does, I refeer to the known fact by most of us "carebears" that the one power who most fiercly controls the anti-carebear movement is the one power moving towards the creations of a "Carebearocracy", Товарищ !