Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Even if the aggressors lose, they are still likely to get more PvP from a few fights with the defenders under the proposal than they would several weeks of the current mechanic.

Some maybe, others maybe not. We can't presume to know in advance and are only able to judge ideas on the basis of what possibilities exist.

In this case, what might or might not happen still doesn't change the underlying reason for the proposal, which is to reduce the risk of pvp happening by allowing Corps a way out that involves no interaction with another player, but by lasering a structure (which has proved to be one of the least enjoyable aspects of Aegis sov).

It offers nothing on the attackers side mechanics related and has the potential to prevent some Corps from even being able to declare war at all.

The potential downsides and limits this (and similar) proposals introduce are not balanced by advantages the other way.

For example, currently the complaint you've made is that you can't shoot wardeccers because they dock up and this sort of proposal will reduce the use of guerilla tactics.

Yet all it really does is switch the ability to do that to the defender, since they can choose whether to just dock up when an attacker is around, or go fight.

The wardeccers tactics are limited by having to defend a structure while defenders can choose what they want. Just like you complain that you stand around holding your **** for a week, the proposal forces attackers into that same situation because they have no choice but to wait by the structure on the chance that a laser will be activated.

You don't like it, but are ok with the mechanics forcing someone else to do it. At least give some balance in these sorts of proposals if you want to force someone else to do something that you don't like yourself.

Currently both sides can choose what they want, yet nothing in this proposal compensates for the limits it places on attackers. It's just unbalanced like all the others and constructed on the basis that the defender has rights to safety when we don't.

Everyone can choose to be an aggressor.

Not a single player is prevented from having that choice.

Once that choice is made, everyone still has a choice how they handle it. This proposal removes options for the wardeccer without any balance.

If comparisons are being made, then they should be kept to the relevant process.


Are you really saying wardec Corps, having paid to be able to shoot other players, would instead want to laser a structure to end a war early that they paid for in the first place?

Yes, like the current system.

This system isn't about direct contest with the deccers. It's about indirect contest without even needing to interact with them if the timing is right.

At least the true colours have come out now and there's no more pretence that it's for corps ready to pvp. It's all about the defender with no counter balance to compensate the other way so that risk still stays the same.

I'm not a wardeccer. Never wardecced anyone since I started playing (these are very easy things to check before making wrong assumptions).

None of us deserve a short break from the risk of pvp. Eve isn't about safety, which is all these proposals are ever about and they never consider all the downsides, just the way the benefits suit the desired outcome of safety.

Making something balanced that doesn't reduce risk and people might support it, but as someone who is also only ever the subject of wars in this game, I'll never support a proposal that removes risk.

Yes I agree, but it shouldn't be mechanics that grant us safety.

Our own actions directly with and against other players should. Being able to laser a structure rather than interact (pvp, diplomacy, mercs) or finding smarter ways to keep playing without being affected by the risk of being shot is where these proposals all fall down.

They just need some balance and consideration of all downsides.

For example, say my highsec industry alt with 3 people in her Corp wants to push some competition out. At the moment, she could declare war and use guerilla tactics with her Corp to cause losses to the other side while denying them the same, eventually forcing them into negotiation or changing ther play because they couldn't match it against her Corp.

Putting a structure into the mix means her small Corp could never declare war on its competition because they'd always have to be ready to protect a structure and the defender doesn't even need to do anything.

But for the way that proposal would force a small Corp to play, there's no counter balance that gives them any sort of advantage or compensates for the limits.

As a proposal, it's directed against the Marmite and PIRAT type wardeccinh Alliances, but completely restricts smaller groups at the same time.

Net effect, fewer wardecs in the game and more safety for everyone.

The most common way to carry out decs is to not follow your example scipio, it is to create an alt corp that has purely PvP chars. No assets, no haulers, no miners, no mission runners and then make the defenders playstyle so taxing they stop playing.

Under my proposal you can carry out a similar dec as the one in your example, where you can harass the target. But you should still be prepared to defend your structure which would be subject to vulnerability timers and reinforce periods to help you and the defenders meet for a showdown. If you REALLY dont want to meet for a show down you can ignore your structure while they bash it. It will still take several days to fully disable. Several days you get to conduct a dec the old fashioned way. And the worst you will suffer for it? you wont be able to dec for a period. Not crippling for an indy corp.

I just think thats much better.



I'm happy to trade gross number of decs for increased quality of decs.



I honestly dont see the preservation of solo deccers as a good reason to not go through with this. I realise we differ on that.

Quality is a fallacy. There are no good fights, there are no bad fights, there are just fights.

And with your plan you even admit there would be less conflict in highsec, but you're willing to trade that for the defender's supposed involvement.

But any corp that wants to fight back already does. This would not improve their lives.

It would only improve the lives of people who think they deserve to be 100% immune to asymetrical warfare and smaller groups. There are several things about this that are unacceptable, and the barrier it sets up against smaller PvP groups is one of the biggest.

Small scale PvP and harrassing ambush tactics are supposed to exist, Daichi. It is an intended playstyle.

Winning one fight and being safe ever afterward by fiat is not.

That process consists of 'don't get killed' with the current mechanics.

Also, the risks associated with the structure mechanic is entirely based on the players.

That's what you're not grasping.

If you want to claim that the mechanic would allow reduced risks, that is only because the deccers are allowing them to do so.
It's a risks vs rewards concept.
The aggressor started the war in order to get kills, the structure would implement a risk factor potentially losing the war if they're incapable of defending the structure.
On the defender's end, if they're willing to take the risk of undocking to bash the structure, then they have the potential to end the war. If they don't want the war to end, they can make it mutual....

Let me try to reiterate my proposal on this

- deccers pays for war
- CONCORD places a structure in HS somewhere between the home systems of the two entities.
- deccers pays 20 mil (random number) for each member they outnumber the target corp by.
- structure has a 24hr anchor period to which is the signal for a war pending.
- if the structure is re-inforced or in-anchored, 24 hrs until war ends.
- ally mechanic is removed.
- if a member drops from either corp, they're locked from joining any other corps for a period of time (two weeks?)
- if a war is made mutual, the structure is removed, the price becomes free, and the only way to end the war is through surrender
fold corp, or mutual stand down.
- if a corp is folded, the corp name/ticker is given as a reward to the opposing entity. That corp name can never be used again, and
the CEO at the time of the dec beginning can never start a new corp.
- the structure is located within a dead space that only the two parties can warp to (no warpgate). This is to eliminate 3rd party
warp gate camping.
- This has the added benefit of mercs being required to start their own dec in order to assist, thus the target of the Merc corp can
counter their aggression as well, removing them from the equation.
- each dec will have its own structure.
- an individual corp within an alliance can have their own wardecs separate from the rest, while the alliance can have decs that all
member corps are a part of. This allows for both small scale and large scale wars.
- the vulnerability timers for the structure have been debated. Some have said random times, others have said the aggressor should decide, some have said its always vulnerable, and I have suggested that it's vulnerable any time there is a member of the aggressing entity online. I had suggested that because, if they have a member online, they're likely looking to kill someone, thus they should be vulnerable as well.
- SOV holding entities do not require a structure in order to dec another SOV holding entity. Their SOV is their dec structure. If they lose it, they cannot dec without a CONCORD structure.
- if a SOV entity wants to dec a non-SOV entity, it will require the CONCORD structure.
- base wardec costs would be 50-100 mil (debatable). So as long as you don't outnumber your target, they could and likely would be cheaper than they are now, thus removing the high ISK protection large entities have over smaller entities.

Yes this may 'nerf' solo dec corps, as Kaarous likes to say, but what you must consider is that you wouldn't expect a single man SOV holding entity to be able to hinder a major SOV entity without the use of spies.
Solo dec corps will still be possible, you'll just have to pick a choose your targets better, and fly better ships, as opposed to wardeccing a 2000 man alliance with a single character and either popping targets of opportunity or only using it to put them on edge when you're around. There are still 10 man corps out there that you'd be able to dec and successfully hold them off (and get lots of kills) if done right.
A solo Marauder can bring down a 10 man fleet with no issues, if you know what you're doing.
Just because you're solo and you started the dec doesn't mean you should be protected from a negative outcome.

I grasp it fine Joe. I just don't agree with it because of the nerf to risk that it involves, without any counter balance the other way.

Your proposal is the worst of the lot in these for the simple fact that you are happy for the structure to be vulnerable if even one member of the wardeccinh Corp is online.

That not only limits the chance to fight, but limits players ability to even play the game at all.