Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To be fair, there's 3 people defending the current mechanic, but that one player is so far out of touch his argument begins to look like drunken ramblings of an old man... Or similar to a prepubescent argument of how i'm right merely because you're wrong and I said so.

As far as forcing the defender to put up a structure.
I'm not too fond of this idea.
As mentioned by those defending the war mechanic, the intent is to allow legal pew pew.
If their intent is to force a surrender, then they'll have to do so by denying the defender the ability to stop the dec through force.

They are the aggressive force and have dictated who there target was, and based on what the defenders of the current mechanic say, the intent is to have legal targets.

If they wish to force a surrender, they will need to overpower the defender and keep them from destroying their structure.

Now, until this point I've been against locking players into corps, as it present a significant issue.
However, I've come to realize that this very mechanic may help to make corps more meaningful instead of throw away tax deduction platforms.
HOWEVER, I don't feel it should be a perma-lock into the corp, as this could cause issues, but there should be a penalty for dropping corp and a delay to dropping corp, a bit like dropping roles.


So, If you decide to drop corp, you're locked into the corp for a 1 week period. Once you reach 1 week, you're immediately dropped from corp, and cannot join a new corp for... we'll say a week for now, but 2 weeks may be a better number.

As far as folding corp, perhaps there should be a tax penalty in order to do so (perhaps 5 x the cost of base wardec price under my structure proposal. Base price being 50 mil, and the penalty is paid to the aggressor). 250 mil isn't a huge loss, but it's still a pretty penny and most aggressors would love to get 5x return on investment.
As an added penalty, the character set as CEO can NEVER start a new corp.


Now, to add a bit of fun to the mechanic, each corp will have a new tab listed as "War trophy case."

• If an aggressor loses their structure in a war, the defender is given a trophy which is called a "denial" trophy.
• If the aggressor gets a surrender from the defender, they're given a "Bill Collector" trophy.
• If several members of the target corp leave during the wardec, the aggressor is given a "Breaking hearts" trophy.
• If the target corp folds, the aggressor is given a trophy that is simply the corp name and ticker of the target corp, and that corp name and tag can never be used again by anyone.

If the war is made mutual, a structure is no longer required and no one has to pay any fees in order to keep the war going, therefore the aggressor no longer has to pay for the Dec.
With this, the only way to end the war would be "Bill Collector", "Breaking Hearts", and the corp name/ticker trophies.

There would also be an option for the two entities to have a mutual agreement option, to which they can end the war without using the surrender or corp folding options.
There is no trophy for this, but the war would show that there was a stand down.

As far as protection timers, I'm not sure how this would work.
Of Course, if the corp folds, or if the aggressor drops the dec without receiving a surrender, no one is protected from future decs.
However, if an entity surrenders, I think part of the mechanic should include a "non-aggression clause" in which the surrender function would list an amount of time in which they would not be able wardec again.
This allows the person claiming the reward from the surrender a bit of control over incentive to force surrender.

Now, there's two options on the idea of the defender "winning" by destroying the structure.
We can either have the non-aggression length be fixed to a 2 week - 1 month period.
.. Or, allow the aggressor to set the non-aggression time if the structure is destroyed.
Perhaps, if they want the risk of less non-aggression time, they can pay a significant amount more, or they can set the non-aggression time high, and have to pay less for the dec. we'd have to determine if this function would be at risk of unintentional outcomes.


My mind is rolling on this, while at the same time rolling on what I should be doing working out in the oil field..
Which goes to say, I can't think straight enough to really sit down and elaborate on this and fine tune it, so for now it's spit balling.