Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No need to edit... i am still correct.

Watch it again. When you're done, watch again.
When you're finished, download a copy, put it on a disk, slap yourself with it, then watch it again.

Regardless of how much you like to call me a liar, you're either an idiot, don't understand English, or lieing because you know i'm right.

Wait, so this is even more confusing.

So the aggressor CANNOT end the war early, if it is NOT mutual.
If made mutual, the aggressor CAN end the war early.

If the war is NOT mutual, the aggressor pays.
If the war IS mutual, the aggressor no longer pays.


So, if the war is not mutual, the aggressor has an out by not paying any longer.
If the war IS mutual, the aggressor has an out by retracting the dec.


so regardless of the situation, the aggressor has an out to the war, even if the defender makes it mutual (suggesting they intend to fight) and even goes as far as making it easier when the war becomes mutual...

I can't even trap them into their own war.

It may just be me, but the mechanic just seems busted all to hell... no reasoning to fight, no positive out for the defender, the aggressor can allow the war to lapse or retract (in the case of mutual) if ever they're bored and/or outmatched thus allowing the to NOT claim defeat, 70-80% of them end with no kills, and it cost more to wardec a large entity than it does a small despite the larger entity likely being more established and capable of fighting.

And yes, I realize 20-30% of war still end WITH kills, but to be perfectly honest, with my negative opinions on wardecs, even I would have assumed that, at the very least, 40% of wars would have ended WITH kills.
I mean, the poor results on kills surprises even me...


Regardless of that, and regardless of whether a new mechanic revolves around structures or not, surely CCP could come up with something where the defender has a chance of winning and the mechanic is all around more fun and engaging.

Ehh, but one of us is more right than the other, lol...j/k
I don't care about it all that much, it's just kinda entertaining to watch Kaarous be so blatantly dishonest and/or dumb.

As far as this super advantage, I have a proposal (however many pages back now) that comes with a whole lot of changes including the removal of the ally mechanic, dropping corp locks you out of joining any others for a period of time, the CEO of a corp that folds can never form a corp again... Things like that... There's likely some stuff I missed in that proposal, but it's a suggestion of ideas and not a full proposal that has to be taken as is 100%.
The idea of a structure cannot be used without a lot more changes to come with it.

On the 'forced' surrender, you're essentially forcing them to either surrender or fold corp by not allowing them to destroy the structure.. If you allowed the aggressor to force a surrender without the other entity actually surrendering, you allow to much ability for the aggressors to manipulate the system. They'll just bring a whole crap load of members, regardless of costs, and will just roll on that forced surrender and banking with ease... It's even more reason to pick on the little guys.
The other question is how would you even balance that? Would forced surrender mean to take all the defender's corp assets?
What happens if they don't have any corp assets? Do you then take from individual player assets? If they don't have enough isk/assets to match the surrender amount, is that corp now forced to make payments?
I'm looking too much into it, as it doesn't seem you're actually proposing this, only stating the mechanic needs and counter.

My argument on this is that the aggressor started the dec specifically to allow legal killing in HS.
They want legal targets... They're already getting what they want and you folding corp or surrendering is just a perk. (I will note this isn't ALWAYS the case, but it is the vast majority of the time).
So, I don't believe there really needs to be some sort of forced 'win' aspect for the aggressor.
They started the war specifically for the kills (which is the intended purpose of wardecs) therefore, the higher their K/D ratio, the more they're 'winning'.
They don't really want the war to end, as it would take away their targets, so presenting them with a mechanic that allows a forced win for the aggressor is redundant. They often make the specifics of the surrender extremely difficult specifically so the defender cannot and/or will not surrender, thus allowing the aggressor the keep shooting...

On the last part of your comment, I agree that we likely won't see anything happen any time soon.
Though, I do feel the general safety of Citadels coupled with many other changes CCP has made for a while now, it appears that they're getting into a 'safer' Eve.
Other changes would be stuff like awoxing, banning can flipping, changes to crime watch, the safety button on the HUD, and many other changes; while Citadels show this lean towards higher safety by effectively 'saving' player assets when a Citadel is destroyed.

I don't think he can. He's pretty much made of it.

After years of reputation as a domestic abuse simulator have been allowed to develop and fester?

EvE is famous for a couple of things:

Epic scale PvP fights
The most boring gameplay of any MMO
The most brutal learning curve of any MMO
The most horrid new player experience of any MMO
Scams, Ganks, and Griefing sanctioned by the Devs that would result in bans in any other MMO.

and more lately game systems that were lackluster in games 10 years ago languishing without meaningful development.

No, I would not expect to see an instant turn around in subscriptions even if they made the perfect game happen tomorrow.

I'm willing to say I was wrong as far as being able to fold a wardec at anytime. (try to get that from a certain someone else)
However, that doesn't change the fact that the defender has no ability to counteract how long the dec actually lasts, unless you want to consider not undocking.

If the aggressor wants to keep it going, it will keep going.

See, being able to drop the dec is a very small part of what I feel to be the overall issues with decs.

- Defender cannot effect the length of the war without essentially 'losing'
- It's cheaper to wardec a small corp than to dec a well prepared large entity
- Aggressor doesn't have to dedicate any activity in order to keep the war going.. IE they don't have to fight
- Being that a defender cannot effect the length of the war, the best strategy (which is advised in most wardec strategy guides) is to not undock and deny kills.
- 70-80% end with 0 kills. (we can debate this being a problem. I feel it's an issue because I thought that number would be much lower)
- Help to arbitrary nature of corps. Why would a corp be worth anything when defending is essentially redundant; and both entities have no reason to commit.

This is just off the top of my head, as i'm rather distracted right now and can't seem to focus on dec mechanics thoroughly.

See, most entities choose loss when wardecced because there's no reason to fight.
Many of us have learned and/or experienced that fighting back either results in losses, no aggressor response (not undocking), and/or no effect on the length of the war.
Soo... just call it a loss and don't undock until the aggressor gets bored, fold the corp if they perma-dec, or surrender if the price is reachable.

If the structure mechanic reduces the amount of wars, it only goes to show how many wars were not based on fight, but only the ability to claim kills in the safety of HS.

Spin harder.




More dishonesty. All you're here for is to nerf the aggressor and aggression as a whole, and you have admitted as much several times.

No one believes you anymore.

The wardeccers want kills. The structure will help to bring targets out into the open for them.
They're getting exactly what they want while the defender is getting a chance at what they want.
Even if resulting in less overall wars, those active wars would increase risks.
I say this because everyone would actually have a reason to take risks.



To be fair, it's more of a dual loss situation.
Defender lost because their involvement in their preferred play style was effected, and the aggressor loses because they didn't get any targets.
I mean, it may not be the exact definition of a loss, but it's within the grey area.



See, in most cases, it's not entirely the defender's fault.
There are those that will continue to go about their normal activities, and dock when war targets arrive in local.
There are those that will guard their PVE to deter action by the aggressor.
There are those that will actively seek to engage their aggressor.

They have no control over when or where the aggressor will attack, and have no control on whether the aggressor will meet their hostile activities.
So, it leads to a situation in which the defender is always negatively effected regardless of what they do.
They either die because they try to keep doing their thing, lose productivity having to defend their fleets from war targets, and even if wanting to pvp the aggressor won't be there to engage unless they're heavily favored.


Let me say this, I HAVE been the aggressor in several wars and YES it was fun!
As a matter of fact, I enjoyed it.
In one day, my friends and I did over 4 billion in damage. Not bad considering there were only 4 of us and none of the target ships were haulers.

However, I've also been on the receiving end of wardecs.
For every bit of fun that I had being the aggressor, it was equally countered by how much fun I DIDNT have as a defender.
Even when attempting to fight back as a defender, it was still not fun. When fighting back, you either died because they knew they could beat you, or they didn't undock.

All I want is for the dec mechanic to be fun on both ends and have an impact. Note I say Impact and not meaning, as meaning is meta.
I will state that the structure mechanic may not be the best way to go about it, but it's the only way I can think of that presents balance that cannot be misused. Anything else I can think of would not solve the issue of stagnation during wars, or would result in someone 'gaming' the system in an unintended manner.

Point is, I want it to be fun for everyone as no one else's fun is more important that yours or mine and ours is no more important than theirs. My honest opinion is that the only way to get the defender's to become involved is to hang an incentive in front of their face.
We don't want to force them to do something, as it would have negative results.
I spent most of my early years as a carebear as a result of gate camps, wardecs, and ganks.
It was easy to negate the ganks, thus it eventually became a non-factor and I laugh a little when it happens. Getting over gate camps just to me becoming experienced that gate camps aren't that common.
As war as wardecs, I haven't gotten over them because it's impossible. Now, I have since moved on to higher involvement in null sec and lowsec, where wardecs are a non-factor. Thus, I have enjoyed every fight, win or lose, significantly more because the fights actually happen and no matter the odds, there was always something That can or could have happened to change the outcome. With wardecs, there's not much that can effect the outcome and the safety and regulations of HS cripple what counters you would otherwise have had. Example is the ally mechanic. If you bring in an ally, they aggressor is aware 24hr before the ally becomes a part of the war. Outside of HS, an ally is only as war away as their availability and/or dependability.

I want wardecs to be more like the rest of Eve where pvp is actually fun for everyone.
Maybe the structure is a bad idea, maybe it's the best idea.
Point is, the current mechanic is not a good idea.

You can't know what the wardeccers want. You only suspect you know because this proposal is so focused on thinking only of PIRAT, Marmites, etc.

It doesn't consider the possibility that the mechanics as they currently are, suit multiple purposes. People can declare war for many reasons beyond trade hub loot pinata hunting.

Every now and then on Reddit for example, someone posts a thread about a war they started because someone else ticked them off, or because they saw an opportunity to gain an advantage.

A lot of these are one person Corps where it was the first time they declared a war and they got a lot out of it.

Yet, under this proposal, options for people like that, that use the mechanic for the reason that you think is the only valid way; they'll be potentially screwed by this.

The only one thing the wardec mechanic needs to achieve is to allow legal fighting in highsec. It does that 100% of the time. Beyond that, it should be left to us all as players what we do with that.


This totally presumes that your idea of what a war must be is the correct view.

There is no correct view. People are free to declare war for a whole host of reasons and until you get past thinking only of the large wardec groups, your proposal will never be balanced and even if you can get past the blinkered thinking, then there's still no need to put mechanics in the way.

You want to restrict the play of some players, but in the process affect the choices that everyone else in the game has.

But, this is all circular and there's nothing more to be gained rehashing the same stuff over and over in this thread, so I'll stop in this one now.

There'll be another thread I'm sure.