Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Err, no it's not. Every mining barge can field a full flight of light drones and can fit a 18k tank at least. Some of them have drone damage bonuses and hundreds of thousands of effective hit points, which makes them more capable combat ships than quite a few actual combat ships.

Additionally my argument would still be valid even if yours was actually true, because the war itself does nothing to affect the gameplay of the miner. The aggressor actually has to take additional action, even if its in a rookie ship in order for the miner to actually have an affect.

If players find their gameplay restricted just because they're at war without the aggressor actually doing anything then the restrictions are entirely self-imposed and blatantly irrational.

I am guessing you are one of the special kids that claim a cloaked hostile in system is also harmless and can be ignored.

A wardec leaves a PvE oriented pilot with a few options.

1. Don't play. Most of them do not enjoy this kind of play, which is why the war has to be forced on them in the first place. Forcing people to play with you is one of the most assinine game concepts I have ever heard of. This can take the form of playing an alt instead (alts are the biggest cancer in this game), playing in different space as sometimes you won't be followed, or just playing a different game altogether.

2. Fly suicidal. Just hope they don't have neutral scouts checking your ship with passive targeters and ship scanners and go about business as normal. This is why bait rarely works, yet mission ships get popped with regularity.

3. Fly compromised. Whatever your goal, from ISK to newbship PvP games, you can fly ready to fight a real force, hire protection, etc... Basically play as the aggressor dictates, making the game less fun. I personally play games for fun, and would rather go watch a show on Netflix than have my game dictated to me by some asshat.

At no point is there an option to resolve the war, other than to fold the Corp and move on.

And as per the usual carebear MO, all of your options are either disingenuous or outright lies.

#1. If they choose not to play at all, for example, they do not belong in EVE. If they would literally rather not play than accept any risk, they should not be here.

#2. If they can't watch local, they don't deserve to live.

#3. If your goal in EVE is to mine endlessly and watch Netflix... I can't even start telling you what's wrong with that. The character limit is too low. For starters, you'd be better satisfied with a Facebook game.




And that is only true if you literally lie about and ignore every other option out there.

Yeah, though.. Most players don't fit a tank 9/10 times and everyone is aware of that.
That's not the attacker's fault, but only goes to express that killing them doesn't take much effort in most cases.

Ehh, if the frig does a good job at managing the drones (IE popping them) they'll do fine.

There's the kicker.
Having said that, we're debating the ease of killing a mining barge with a frig.
Truth be told, you rarely, if ever, have a solo pilot shooting at them, let alone a solo in a frig.

Mining in a Procurer or a Skiff is self-ganking a Procurer every hour with losses coming from not mining in a proper barge.
And the only thing they are capable of in combat is dying longer, allowing not only a solo frig griefer, but all the other baboons in his monkey pack to get on the killmail. Especially Skiffs, which are so overpriced, that in anything aside super rare corner case scenarios they are never worth the money.

The only people who think Procurers and Skiffs are the thing - are ganktards, who moan about them 23/7, despite them being total useless **** for a miner. Guess some people are mad at the miner's choice to self-gank every hour instead of letting them gank him once a month...

Making up your "only 3 options" bullshit is lying, yes.

Soooo, you were trolling....

If it wasn't an actual, non-joking argument, then it was a troll.
Which goes to show your merit in this conversation.

As far as your 1v1, if I thought for even a second that you might actually fight me 1v1, I would.
However, you and I both know that as soon as there's an indication that I'm winning, you're going to bring in your neut logi.
You're a wardeccer. Your understanding of a "fair fight" is whatever it takes for you to win.

Look, I see where you're coming from.
You feel like suggestions like these threaten your preferred play style.
I get that...

However, you're letting that fear blind you to the fact that every time you wardec a corp, you are threatening their preferred play style.

I see the merit and value in the wardec mechanic, but the methods it is currently used for are nothing more than risk free kills.
The aggressor has to put 0 effort into their own dec and regardless of whether they even go into the defender's home system, they are still effected by it in a way that is seen as negative to them.

I'm not asking for the removal of wardecs. I'm only stating that the defender needs to be provided with a means to an out that isn't dropping corp, not playing for the duration, or quitting.
If a defender is willing to fight back, then they are actively engaging in the conflict, which should be presented with a more favorable option to them, which would be ending the dec and/or forcing the aggressor to fight on their terms.

If this is tied to a structure, the aggressor will still have the upper hand, as they START the fight with control over the structure.
If they lose that control, then it's obvious they weren't strong enough to begin with.


This isn't RL and shouldn't be treated as such. It's a game, and in a game there needs to be balance.
CCP is already working on this by trying to limit the size of engagements to smaller entities, hopefully inciting more smaller and balanced fights.

Sure, there's always going to be the situation where someone is going to come in and steam role, but in the case of wardecs, the aggressor should be just as much at risk of that as the defender.

So, here's a suggestion.

• Make the structure, and make the price reasonable. as a benefit for the wardeccer, the structure is re-usable if it isn't destroyed. One structure per war.


• No one is allowed to attack the structure that isn't a active member of the defending corp and is a concordable offense.


• The deccer pays a weekly fee to concord in order for the structure to be anchored. The more members you outnumber the defender by, the higher the weekly rental fee is. This forces both sides to monitor their memberships and clean out their inactive members as the deccer doesn't want to pay more, and the defender doesn't want the deccer to have to pay less.
This keeps large deccer entities from outnumbering their targets, and keeps targets from representing false number with inactive characters.
The weekly increase would need to be fairly substantial or else the deccer would just take the extra small isk hit in order to overpower the defender.


• If the war is made mutual, the structure is a non-factor and can be taken down. Neither side has to pay a fee at this point.
The only way to end a mutual war is through mutual agreement, surrender, or one of the two entities disbanding. This would also be shown in the war report.


• If an entity disbands during a war, the other entity is given their ticker as a trophy, and the war report would have a trophy case.
Those corp/alliance names and tickers would not be usable again.


• Since the war mechanic would support more balanced numbers, the defender would no longer be able to recruit an ally, HOWEVER, as a counter to this, wars would need to have a limit of 4-6 weeks before CONCORD declares a cease fire and neither entity would be able to dec the other for approx 2-4 weeks, unless the war was made mutual.


• ANY type of support to either entity while engaging each other, from a non-war entity is a concordable offense. This means no neut logi, no neut boosts, and not even fleet members that aren't part of the war can engage while the two entities are aggressing each other.


• There is no re-enforcement timer on the structure. It has no defenses of its own and cannot be repped by the aggressor, unless it's through station services. This is to keep the aggressor from being able to play bait games and then just repping it back to full HP. This also means that the commitment of the defender has an instant payoff, as opposed to having wait for a period in order to finish the job


• If there is to be a vulnerability window set for the structure, this window will be determined by which game times best match up based on what the two entities have set at their timezone/play time. This is the same mechanic you would use to find a corp that suits your play times. The vulnerability windows are dictated by where their play times overlap.

This provides many positives to both sides that are not supported by the current system

No outside influence, the defender as a chance at an out, the deccer doesn't have to worry about allies anymore, the defender can effectively force the attacker out by engaging the structure if they wish to fight, the deccer gets to wave a carrot in the face of the defender that would hopefully have them undock and become active in the war, wars become more balanced in member count as the aggressor doesn't want to have to pay a substantial amount more to overpower and doesn't want to lose their structure by being under powered.

Yes, this likely means that small entities would no longer be able to wardec large alliances, but seeing as how they only cherry pick kills in tradehubs, I see no issue with that.

As a last note to how the mechanics work, SOV holding entities should be allowed to wardec other SOV holding entities without a structure and at a base costs since numbers don't matter if you're a SOV holder.