Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is a farce and not even remotely equivalent to winning.
It's just another means of losing and I'm sure you're well aware of this.
Deccers are the only satisfied customer of the current mechanics.
If they drop corp, you win.
They dissolve corp, you win.
Jump to a new corp, you win and get to dec them again.
Surrender, you win.
They quit Eve, you win.
Pose a credible threat to which you cannot match, keep them wardecced until they give up and... YOU WIN..

... And yes, I do mean WIN the war, but some of the other deccers through out strawman arguments on how "winning" is relative, which is why I used the phrase "forcefully end".

To suggest that avoiding the war is winning, despite you likely having made claims of how being able to drop corp is BS, is a straight up lie as we're both aware it is not a positive outcome for the defender, only a means to an end, just the same as surrendering.


Soo wait... them being able to win a wardec against you is them not accepting their status in the Eve hierarchy?
Soo, you being weaker than they are is somehow them denying that they are weaker than you are?
Soo, you denying them the ability to forcefully end a wardec is somehow a semblance of your hierarchy position over them because win or lose you're still better than them?

By this thought process, perhaps we should do an evaluation and find out which major alliance has the strongest belief that they are the best players/alliance in Eve, thus everyone else must accept their position and surrender to their will.
With this, we'd be able to resolve this argument and say that alliance has won the game and there's no point in continuing on.
/end of discussion, end of thread, end of Eve.

Does this sound preposterous and against everything that Eve stands for?
If you say NO, you're full of crap because the entire point of Eve is that anything can change and anyone call fall or rise at any moment; thus it is a persistent and every changing world to which we call an MMO.

Now, having established that point... Why then do you defend not ability for the defender to forcefully end the war, despite that being part of the very premise of what makes Eve so great?
You have the potential to win or lose at everything in Eve except for wardecs.
This needs to change..

If you can't handle a change the makes wardecs like everything else in Eve, then you cannot handle Eve.
Go master a twitch shooter and troll away until everyone rage quits.



Because I can destroy your ships before you say I can.
Because I can take your SOV before you say I can.
Because I can pop your POS before you say I can.

There is literally nothing in Eve that I cannot do without your consent except stop your wardec against me.
I don't give a crap who started it, who paid for it, or who poo'ed on it.
If it's in Eve, there should be a means of winning and losing.
Some of the greatest stories about gaming have come from Eve, and revolve around the loss of something by someone who didn't agree to the loss.

So again, if you're unwilling to accept loss because you have this egotistical belief that somehow your isk or your being the aggressor gives you writes above all others, than Eve should be a very disappointing game for you...
This is no different than you expecting all all players of Eve to be subject to aggression and potential loss at any point in time.
To this point, I agree with you and that should stay as is, but the key factor in that statement is "ALL PLAYERS OF EVE" and not just the ones you dictate. THIS INCLUDES YOU!!

So long as corps are still meaningless and trivial to reroll, this is a lie.

Wars are a meta activity. There is no "win", there is no "lose" in the mechanics.

All there is, is removing Concord between two groups for a fee. Nothing less, and nothing more. Anything else you claim is something you have injected into it by projecting, and not the actual intent of the mechanic in any way, you dishonest lout.



We are subject to it. Nothing stops you from shooting back, we're both equally flagged for combat. The only thing stopping you is blatant cowardice and your petty demands that we should be handicapped before you'll even consider poking your head out of your hole.

No.

If you can't "win" without crippling one side just for having the temerity to be the aggressor, then you don't deserve to "win".

Stop asking for to handcuff other people just because you're bad.

It's an idea that does not favor you, and you being a dishonest person, will not admit that any idea is better unless that idea heavily favors you.

You are as biased as can be.
Me on the other hand, I've been on both sides of wardecs.
I have been taken advantage of by the mechanics, and I have taken advantage of the mechanics.
I have actually enjoyed using wardecs to kill defenseless targets.
But I am still willing to admit the imbalance within the mechanic.

If I were here with the sole intent of nerfing wardecs, I would be asking for the removal of wardecs, a consent option to toggle, or an option to make your corp immune to decs.

I have not asked for any of these things.

So, your claims that I have the sole intent of destroying your method of gameplay is false right out the gate and the very definition of a strawman argument.

My suggestions have even tied in things that would be a negative outcome for the defender, such as the removal of the ally mechanic and the war following the individual wherever they go for the remainder of the week.. Even if they drop to an NPC corp.

You are the one who is denying any change that would present any negative outcome for you..
Let me ask you this, did you cry when they nerfed the ishtar?
Are you crying now that they're nerfing t3ds and logi?

Cause seriously... If you're going to cry over one negative outcome, then my assumption is that you cry over them all.



Says the guy crying over the chance at losing



Well you apparently don't like the idea of losing sooooo..... deal with it? Maybe?
It's funny how you love the non-consensual act of wardecs..
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you've quit Eve before over someone making the war mutual.

"Waaa, I don't like it when my target fights back!!!! I don't want to lose!!!"


Anyone who comes into this thread with an unbiased opinion will see that you are truly crying because you shouldn't be able to lose.

Yet again you repeat this lie.

What I don't like the idea of is the claim that one side should be handicapped to make up for the failures of the other side.

The mechanic right now is fair, and you hate that.

One of us does, and the other wants to add a handicap to one side to make their lives harder for no justifiable reason.

Right now, the mechanics are more or less equal. Both sides can shoot the other legally, simple as that.




The mechanic is intended to not require any goals.

It is intended to remove Concord between two groups, for a fee. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't get to project your e-honor onto the mechanic, and you certainly don't get to project e-honor onto game balance.





Ah, and now we come to the Herzog method of dishonest arguing.

"If you want to have it anymore you better not actually use it!"

Yeah, how dare we use the mechanic as intended, right? How dare PvP happen in highsec? How dare non consensual PvP be a thing?



First of all, wars are positive drivers of retention. Your "think of the children" nonsense exists only in your imagination.

You know what actually does drive people away from this game? The rest of highsec. The boring, banal, trivial, utterly pointless PvE gameplay.

The very last thing this game needs is to strip away yet more actually interesting gameplay for the sake of the worthless PvE.





I spit on the idea.

"just one more nerf", said a different way.

You'll say anything to justify hurting the real game, for the sake of your mindless, pointless grinding.

I dunno if anyone ever told you this or not, but EVE is a PvP game. First, last, and always.

Get right or get gone.

You'd solve the entire issue with disbanding corps by refunding the aggressor their fee if a corp disbands. This would be in keeping with CCPs justification for the concept of cost scaling, you're not paying to be at war with an entity you're "paying for targets" in their exact words. If you don't get your targets you logically shouldn't be paying.

This however is obviously unacceptable to carebears because in their minds the aggressor should be penalized in every conceivable way regardless of whether or not it makes sense or whether or not the actual outcome benefits them in any way.

It was after all the carebears who wanted wars to be more expensive, which both made aggressors more invested in their wars and caused the trend towards increasingly large highsec pvp groups. It was also carebears (and a bunch of really dumb lowsec people) who thought it would be a brilliant idea to make declaring war "have more consequences" by removing the ability of aggressors to retract wars, which essentially rendered it impossible for defenders to actually win.

The last one was a big one because before that the entire goal of defenders was to get the aggressor to retract the war and that was made literally impossible because CCP listened to people talking about how they wanted to wail on the people who declared war on them without them being able to run away, which was a complete load of bull.


Blindly trying to penalize aggression and make wars arbitrarily difficult, costly or complex for no reason other than because you think they should be that way because you don't do them and don't like other people doing them will only ever result in a system that is only useful to a niche group of people who will then monopolize it's use. That's bad and results in meta situations like the one that exists now.

Well, as they say in Kino "Bing IS the nice one."

I won't argue with you that CCP has relentlessly made things safer, easier, more forgiving for the casual player. All the upcoming changes you listed and my list from upthread lamenting the loss of canflipping, awoxing, etc are all indications of a game leaving behind its roots in an effort to become more attractive to the, I was going to say less committed but lets just face reality, to the bad gamer who has to be fed a constant stream of dog treats in order to keep them playing.

If someone were to go to www.minerbumping.com and, after the obligatory reading of The Code, were to click on LINKS he would find the real founding documents of the New Order. They can either be read or you can listen to the riveting vocalization by Sasha Nyemtsov (the guy sounds JUST like Boris Karloff) of the Manifesto's of James 315. He would then understand that the New Order of Highsec arose in response to this constant nerfing of highsec pvp. Our raison d'etre is to kill those who think they are safe in highsec. Miners are the worst of the lot but freighter pilots, blinged out mission runners, ISK printing Incursion pilots, and the "oblivious to what game they are playing" AFK autopiloting shuttle pilots with billion ISK pods are all equally worthy of sudden (and expensive) loss. It is our goal to keep highsec as dangerous, dark and interactive as we can under the increasingly heavier restraints that CCP places on us.

What those of you calling for a change to wardecs are seeing from us is our response to "one more nerf" that led to all the previous changes that have created an environment where there are actually players who think what we do is some sort of griefing rather than the core essense of the game. We are standing in front of the headlong rush to change Eve into Wow and shouting "STOP!".

It may seem that we are protecting our niche and in some regards it is correct. Our niche is where unprepared players lose their ships, where the unobservant are shocked to find someone is coming for them, where the unworthy find out that they are not the savior of the universe but just another target for a better player. The reason people think we need to be stopped is that in most games they have played players like us, who keep them from "winning", are quickly banned. Only in Eve do we flourish and seemingly prosper. Although I know the actual sacrifice required to be New Order I understand how it appears we are only serving our own benefit.

Heres the thing though. We love Eve so much, the Eve we were told existed, the Eve that WE still make reality at times, that DID exist prior to the seemingly endless string of nerfs brought about by demands such as in this thread, that we WOULD willingly see it all come crashing down before its made so safe its no longer Eve. When we say our goal is to save highsec.... we mean it. Eve may be nerfed to inconsequence some day but we'll go down battling.

People thought it was some kind of punny joke when I came up with my motto. I do mean it .

Highsec is worth fighting for.

I'm not the one agitating for needless change. All I have to do is point out how your justifications are all either lies or bullshit.

Here's the basic exchange:

Carebears: "Waah, I hate this so it should change because I hate it and my feelings matter more than game balance!"

Real players: "No, it shouldn't. Your suggestions motivated by selfishness and are not balanced."

The freaking end.

there are no penalties on the aggressor in this case other than 50 million isk of which I'm sure our eve Trillionaires laugh at that meager value. Considering that can be made in 50 minutes of incursions or a couple hours of mining its nothing to use as ammo for defense of the aggressor i have 2 week old newbies that can afford that.

Also no one is saying the aggressor should have massive penalties attached. but the defense should be given a chance at winning that is the same in every aspect of Eve except wars. right now as you stated wars simply remove concord as a factor. However you are also wrong here as well.

These major groups all use out of corp alts for boosting, for remote reps and for scouting. None of these things trigger concord. some shouldn't but remote reps and remote sensor boosting or remote links do not trigger any concord offense. some trigger suspect but considering reps can now land at 95 k and alter a fight as a just in case mechanism its a little game breaking as well.

again its a matter of mechanics getting int he way of what people really want.

for instance If I was going to fight. Take the corporation and drop our logi team from it drop out a few sensor boosting alts and our full leadership toon for remote boosting, why should i risk the command ship if I can keep it safe and reap the benefits.

So on your risk vs reward argument that means no risk and all reward.

Lets talk preparation for wars.

mechanic in game to monitor who is online is the watchlist. I can watchlist entire alliances. it takes forever but formerly did it to pangu back in the day and to PIRAT last week. you know when they are online and can use agents to track locations. but what you dont know is when there are alts for remote reps. so my hours of prep getting intimately familiar with an alliance going into a war mean nothing because really I need to track every toon with logi trained or every command ship pilot in the game that cannot be done. Its worse than fighting terrorists because anyone in the crowd can be a part of the war just waiting to remote rep your ship if the engagement gets to be too much.

I would have to watch for months to find all the alts just to fight one group.

simply put the odds are stacked in the favor of the aggressor so much so that wars are not fought by the defense to get a higher number of kills they are fought by not logging in and not participating at all and hoping that it will pass over. this causes people to quit the game. because as many of the new players that I hired in "why play if you cant even do basic things without an overpowering opponent wailing on you for no reason other than they are more powerful than you." keeping in mind these are people that the biggest ship they own in a venture.

The mechanic needs to be looked at because as it stands it is driving new players away.

It depends which carebears you are referring to

Null-sec dwellers do as much PVE as high-sec

But don't let that get in the way of your strawman argument