Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Then, in that narrow, selfish definition, you don't get to "win". But then, if I define "winning" as being "I get to empty out all your corp and POS hangars", it's equally unlikely, and I won't "win" either.

Like I said before, next time, pick a goal that isn't completely against every principle of this game.




I'm not willing to accept any of those. I merely said that people are allowed to define their own. Which you are, you can define "winning" in EVE as flying around under a cloak watching other people fight, pretending you're a newscaster, but unless you can actually do it, what you define doesn't matter.

Why is so hard to get you people to accept the reality of the game?




God forbid you ever stop chewing on rocks, and actually have any fun.

Nah, games aren't supposed to be fun, you're just supposed to press F1 for hours on end to make the green number get bigger, right?

Pft. I can think of Facebook games more interesting than that.





If that's actually true, then they are absolutely no threat to you, and you have no reason for this endless whining.

If you actually want to fight, (which you don't), then go wardec somebody and shoot them. Oh but wait, in your skewed vision of things, the attacker is the "bad guy", right?




Because I'm the one who took the initiative.

If you want to be the attacker, then go be the attacker. If you don't like being a prey animal, then unlike real life, you can just decide to stop being one. Quit complaining about the results of the decisions that you made. If you want to be on my side of the fence, then get up off your lazy carebear ass and climb over it.

But of course you don't, you're just trying to make a false equivalency between us. If you actually wanted this, you could already be doing it, instead of afk in a Domi doing L4s, crying about how other people have the merest possibility to be mean to you. The claim that carebears actually want to fight is a myth.

I keep hearing this "heavy advantage" to the defender, yet the ONLY thing I've ever heard brought up is the ally system..
If they ally system made any difference, than 2000 man alliances being wardecced by a 5 man corp wouldn't be a thing.

All the ally mechanic does is bring more potential targets in for the aggressor OR force them to stay docked which they would have done if any threat arose anyway...

And yes, it would nerf wardecs mechanics.... for the aggressor, while buffing them for the defenders.

See, this is your biased... You see it as a nerf because it favors you.
You refuse to see it from the other side of the coin, therefore, any changes that do not favor you are a nerf and you refuse to accept them...

So yeah, my intent IS to reward those willing to fight... You just refuse to see the balance with that because not all the rewards are being handed to you...


Would you quit if CCP made the change that I've proposed?
If yes... GOOD.... I'd rather have a fight with someone who's not a coward, and willing to lose a ship or two in order to have a little fun.


Oh, and my suggestion does NOT kill small wardec groups.
There are a crap ton of small corps that are perfectly viable targets.


Your problem is that you're treating Eve as if it's not a game and there shouldn't be balance within a mechanic because "that's not Eve". Well, I have bad new for you, but that IS Eve. Everything else within the game provides both the aggressor and defender with a tangible means of winning and losing.
Being able to stop a wardec is a tangible effect that should be support..

If you don't agree with that, then you're unwilling to accept loss and need to speak with a therapist because life is going to be really hard for you...

I mean, this is truly funny.

You don't see just how unbalanced and unreasonable your claims are.

First off, you start with a completely radical premise, declaring that the ONLY thing the defender will accept at all is the complete dissolution of the wardec. You will accept nothing less than total safety, the complete loss of non consensual PvP in highsec. (you want wars to be a corp version of duels, completely consensual)

Then, based on that completely errant and entirely selfish premise, you declare anything that doesn't let you achieve that goal as being broken and unfair.

And then, projecting like a mofo, you claim that anyone who thinks the mechanic is fine right now as somehow being selfish, solely for being in opposition of your completely unreasonable goal... of total safety in a PvP sandbox game.

What in the actual hell is wrong with you? How do you not realize that you are playing the wrong game?

Considering how you've flip flopped between trying to fight back and declaring that the only thing you will consider "winning" is complete and total safety...

Idk, you tell me. I can't keep track of your constantly shifting positions.




I've seen less projection in an A/V studio.

You don't want PvP. You, like the dishonorable cowards that gankers are, want only to gank.

I suspect you wet yourself at the thought of an actual PvP battle with a worthy opponent.

This game isn't here for YOU (or your ilk) to dictate how it ought to be played. And when CCP realizes they are losing subscribers over the current mechanic (and they are), they are sure to change it. And should they lose people like YOU over that, then all the better. EVE would be a far better place without the likes of you.

Soo wait.. you're claiming that fighting back and "winning/ending the dec" can't be tied to each other?
Oh, and winning is not total safety.

In my suggestion, winning is engaging in PVP, thus indulging the purpose of wardec mechanics, would have the potential outcome of ending the war, if that is what you choose.

For those defending corps that don't see ending the war as winning.
Then the option here is to make the war mutual.
In doing so, the structure is no longer relevant, the cost for the dec to continue is free, and the only way for the war to end is for both sides to reach a mutual agreement, one of the two surrenders, or one of them folds corp.




I wouldn't to project anything if you'd just come out and be honest.
We already know you're crying about the potential for you to lose a war...
So just tell us that and there's nothing left to project.

And that is not a choice the defender should have the ability to make, or else it defeats the whole purpose of the war, and breaks other things besides.

If you want that kind of agency, then it should be you paying for the war, and taking the initiative to start it.

Ah yes, now we're back to the "It's the predator's fault that the prey isn't up to snuff" part.



Tell me again how it's my fault that people who don't belong in player corps are offering themselves up as targets. Or maybe what a bad person I am for swatting those same flies who refuse to lift a finger to defend themselves.




What you're suggesting is to break the mechanic. You've already admitted as much, that all you want is to nerf wars.




It means that it would cripple small and solo groups to the point of being functionally unable to operate.

Which again, despite your protests to the contrary, you have admitted is the intent. You hate smaller groups and asymmetrical warfare.

Well now I see the problem here. You're just not very bright. I never said PvP is bullying. What YOU consider to be PvP is *not* PvP, it's cowardly bullying and exploitation of a mechanic that lets YOU get easy kills of opportunity and then hide when an actual challenge comes your way.


CCP-Rise is apparently having a bit of cognitive dissonance if he doesn't agree that the War Dec system is broken. (But where does he say it isn't broken? Produce THAT quote why don't you.)

So he recognizes that the social aspect of the game is what retains players, but would dispute the fact that the current War Dec system which forces players OUT of player corporations is a problem? I'd like to see him square that circle.

Maybe they should examine when it is that they started bleeding subscribers and why it is that healthy vibrant high-sec player corps like EVE University have been losing membership to NPC corps and cancelled accounts. They used be able to protect themselves from War Decs, yet even they are not adverse to PvP or even War Decs (for training players) if they had some control over when and how to end them. But to be under endless war Decs (because they are big and well known and host a lot of NewBros), war Decs that they have NO control over, that isn't working for their mission.

So what has been a staple of New Eden and EVE Online is finding itself ever more on the ropes. All for the sake of loud mouthed sociopaths desires.

So you think PvP is bullying.

It's not. Non consensual PvP, in fact, is one of the founding principles of EVE Online.

You're just proving that you don't belong.




Oh, I love this.

"The devs are wrong if they don't agree with me!"

Ell. Oh. Ell.




Likely because EVE Uni was full of ISBoxer cheaters. Too bad, so sad, but you can't cheat anymore.