Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There is a difference between an opponent being "too strong" and a small aggressor corp being "unable to be online for 7 days straight".

You proposal is like setting up a "pre-war" before the real war can happen. If I want to remove your citadel I should be able to try, even if I am just three dudes and you are a corporation of 20. If you win on the battlefield, well played and you earned the right to keep using that structure. If you shoot some beacon I am suppose to protect while I was at work, well then you haven't even given me a chance to attack.

The wardec mechanic is not there to prevent conflict and for people to hide behind. It is there to allow conflict to be possible at all in highsec.

The worst that can happen is that it is impossible for me to ever to reach the final reinforcement of a citadel. I declare war every weekend and go through two reinforcement phases, and then during the week while my corp is not logged in the target corp destroys my WHQ ending the war forcing me to start again. The structure is effectively 100% safe from me - it is literally impossible for my corp to kill that structure.

Come now. You and I both know that the reality of how that works out is rather different. We both know people who have made comfortable livings abusing precisely that, and it's hardly a state secret.




I disagree. Actively evading me is something I am absolutely, 100% okay with.

"Push button, get safety" is absolutely unacceptable. Or "orbit with entosis, get safety".

The problem is that your proposal raises the barrier of effort immensely for the attacker, to a degree that functionally takes the mechanic out of the hands of small groups and individuals completely, and drastically lowers the barrier of effort for the defender, to that of an F1 of an entosis link.

Your mechanic would in every way encourage the defender to actively not fight, but instead to **** around with the already toxic entosis mechanic instead of actually risking anything more than a T1 frigate with an jesus laser.

Do you not see the problem there?




The mechanic is not supposed to have a "direct counter play". Wars are an extension of player freedom, and it should be met with player actions and reactions, not just dicking around in an entosis frigate.

If they want to end the war so badly, they should be forced to fight and discourage the attacker, surrender, or drop corp. There are no other acceptable outcomes.

This proposal lets you try and opens a battlefield around your WHQ. If you win, well played and you earn the right to keep using that WHQ.



Citadel reinforce timers can be adjusted
Much like it is impossible for weak corps to operate during a war dec, your corp can also change how it does things to increase its chances of success, like hire more people.

I dont.

The entosis event or bash takes a matter of days. The defender is exposed for the duration of this event and its only 'push button, get safety' if the WHQ owner never turns up. Thats assuming it uses the entosis mechanic at all. If it is preferred it can be tied to a bash and made immune to entosis links.

It doesnt just drastically lower the barrier of effort for defenders, it allows them to do something that otherwise was impossible no matter how much effort you put in. But does so at the price of exposing yourself to the very people trying to attack you.

No, it doesn't.

It takes ten minutes at a time, broken up between a few relatively longer time periods.

How do you think this is supposed to promote conflict, I wonder?

"I just wardecced you, so unless you want me to come attack you from this structure that I literally can't leave, you better come over here!"

There's no teeth there. No threat. Nothing. They don't have to do anything if you are a smaller group, because they know you have to watch the ******* thing for three plus hours per day or else a cov ops will pop in and nail it in less time that it takes to a take a dump, and if you are a threat they know they can just **** around with entosis frigates until you fail the timer grind.

None of those are acceptable outcomes. None of those are threats of any kind, either. The wardec mechanic is supposed to be a threat to the person who was decced. It is supposed to pose a problem for them.




It should stay impossible, mechanically speaking. You and I both know that there are plenty of ways to make a dec go away that don't involve such hilariously low barriers as a ten minute entosis timer.

The person paying for the war should be the only one who has any agency in how long it lasts. When it's free across the board, then we'll talk.

No, I'm not. The citadel mechanics are plainly laid out already. They're not going to make one thing a special case, that just leads to the godawful situation we have now with deployables, where every single one has different aggression rules and you need several sticky notes to figure out how it works.

They've said more than once that their goal is streamlined rulesets based entirely on sec status.




Did you sell your character or something? Get hit on the head in a mosh pit? This isn't the you I've read in the past.

And anyway, people will either quit, and there goes even more much needed player interaction in a part of space already starved for it, or the rest will conglomerate into huge groups, because that is the only way to get anything involving structures done. They have such a huge opportunity cost and time barrier that they force people to band up into large groups.

So why do you think small and solo wardec groups should get the axe? Why precisely should their playstyle disappear? What is this actually supposed to accomplish, besides trying to kill off wars as a playstyle at all?

Then quit.

An the groups will only conglomerate is they want large scale decs.
If they want to dec 5-50 man corps, then they're fine.

Having said that, you've been wardeccing corps on the basis that they can do nothing to you, as you won't fight back if it comes to that.
Heaven forbid you'd be forced to undock to fight the war you started.

Oh, and you can run offense on occasion.
You're making it sound like you're sitting back, guarding a structure waiting for them to come to you.
If that's how you want to play, go ahead.
This apparently shows your risk aversion.

You don't have to cover it like home base. If they hit it and start the timer, then you know EXACTLY when you have to be there to defend it. And you get to do that twice.

All I'm hearing from you is that the agressor should assume no risk and be able to freely undock, pound, redock at their liesure. It's just madness.... risk averse madness.

When Wardecs have absolutely zero negative effects then the deccing entity can have sole agency over it and call that balanced.

Right now they are basically just paying some ISK upfront to circumvent one of the only benefits to being in high sec space. For those rules to be circumvented like that wars should be required to be mutual before CONCORD stops getting involved. Perhaps if they are not mutual a lesser benefit like reduced sec status hits would be appropriate.

You want to live in a fantasy where it's Ok, even laudable, to inflict pain on other people without their consent. Even in the BDSM community that's not OK. We are all consenting to some rough treatment by playing this game, but there are supposed to be graduated limits and many playstyles supported.

Right now all playstyles are equal, but direct predatory PvP playstyles are a whole hell of a lot more equal than the others.

It's funny you should make that claim, as this is exactly what the current wardec system does to the defender and you're here trying to protect that.

It's the usual hypocritical slander we typically hear from wardeccers.

You hate how others use their player freedom, so you use the wardec system to force a little bit of unreasonable restriction on that.
And yes, it is unreasonable restriction because their are no favorable actions the defender can take to make the wardec more reasonable on their end.

Much like I've stated.

1) They can't do what they want to do without restriction, because the deccer will put pressure on them and/or destroy them.

2) They have no means of swaying the dec in their favor.

3) If they are willing to fight back, the deccer will not meet that force

So, the defender says to themselves, wtf is the point of me playing Eve during a wardec?
This leads to unsubs/drops of accounts/trials from newbros, as they are basically playing a game in order to not be able to play the game.
Most of use vets don't die to wardecs unless we're willing to take that risk. It's our newbros that keep getting caught with their pants down, because they don't have the knowledge and reaction times that the rest of us have.

Do you know how sad it is to tell newbros to dock up and GTFO because they will only die?
Even if we form up a fleet to attempt to fight back, all the newbros are learning is that PVP is boring, as your targets run scared and only wish to hit you when you're not looking.

Dramatic changes to the wardec system is needed, not only to balance the system, but to also allow players to experience the type of PVP that Eve is supposed to be.


You and your friends keep stating that Eve is a full time pvp game, yet the only pvp you are involved in is the type where the target doesn't/can't shoot back. You don't want pvp because that would mean you want to fight. You don't want to fight, you want to kill.