Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is factually wrong.

The only way an aggressor can end a war early without the defender surrendering is to disband their corp. Equally a defender can end a war early by disbanding theirs.

The only way a non-mutual war can end early is for one side to surrender to the other and the surrender mechanic works in the exact same way for both parties (inadequately).

The defender also gets equivalent choices to the aggressor in that they can choose to bring in allies, or not, at no cost to themselves whatsoever and the aggressor cannot do anything at all about that.

Once a war is declared the only differences between the aggressor and defender is that the aggressor, as the initiator bears the financial cost of the war and cannot bring in allies. In all other respects they have the exact same mechanical capabilities as the defender.

It's almost as if you've never actually been involved in a war at all, and don't even know or care how they actually work and are just trying to push an agenda or something.

I am afraid I would have to fail you. Read what you have proposed: in an effort to stimulate PvP in your game you are proposing to make it impossible to PvP as a reward for winning. Sure, you have convinced yourself that in the context of Eve the resulting PvP would be "better" (whatever that is), but from a top-level view down, your game design is asinine. You are asking for "counterplay" to PvP itself in a pure PvP game. You already have that - it's called taking the fight to your opponent or, alternatively going to play another, non-PvP game instead.

You are an articulate individual. I am sure you can think of some other incentive to offer the defenders to undock and defend (or even go on the attack) that does not involve locking out the core gameplay of your PvP game.

I'll throw one out. Kaarous is correct: the way to make wars more meaningful and incentivize fighting (rather than just docking up) is to give corporations some value. There has to be advantages to having a corporation so that you want to defend, and something to lose if you choose not to. The easiest way I see for this to use structures to give bonuses to PvE and other income generation (perhaps that also increase slightly over time) but are expensive enough so that letting them explode is not the optimal strategy from a game theory perspective. Couple that with a real mercenary marketplace so that corps without the ability or interest to defend can hire help more safely and easily, and highsec corps would now have incentive and ability to defend their income generating structures from aggressors.

Citadels, and even more so the other proposed structures seem to be moving in this direction with income boosting effects and rigs which make evasion costly/impossible. Probably there are other changes that could be made to wars to make them more fun for all, but in my opinion everyone should wait until these structures, likely the most significant change in the history of Eve gameplay, are fully implemented before deciding what is best for the next iterations of war declarations.

EDIT: Misread post, Disregard

Did you miss the part where I said all their funding comes from alts?



lol... you're silly

It's actually recognised by CCP as one of three rights we possess as players.

From the CSM Whitepaper:

By becoming part of the EVE community, players can be said to possess three intrinsic, broadly described rights. These rights are integral to the continued growth of virtual society and establishing the optimal balance in governance between individuals and the legislator.

FREEDOM FROM UNDUE EXTERNAL INFLUENCES
...

UNLIMITED INTERACTION WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS
Next, individuals have the right to unlimited interaction with other individuals in the virtual society. Players are
free to take any action allowable within the “natural laws” of the game, and as such are governed only by their
free will. This right is universal to all individuals, regardless of intent. As such, this freedom leaves them wholly
unprotected from the consequences of their actions, regardless of if those consequences are just or not.

INFLUENCE ON HOW SOCIETY IS LEGISLATED
...

The white paper recognises that the "exact terms defining the limits of player-to-player interactions are defined in the Terms of Service (TOS), which is incorporated in the EULA by reference."

So as long as we behave within the terms of the EULA, then we have a right to unlimited interaction with other players allowed within the mechanics.

No mechanic should be introduced that reduces those rights, that forces a limited playstyle because someone else doesn't like how another person plays, or which bans wars for periods of time.

Again, most use Alts to fund their pvp and/or Alts to pvp when another is unable to dock.
You can argue that every player can have an NPC alt with which to fund pvp, but this would then leave you no one to wardec for easy kills.

Oh, and on Kaarous' coment on the Mongel's.
They didn't have stations in which they could hide from any hostile aggression.
..And, they no longer exist... I can't perma-kill you in Eve.

...edit.. And on the unfair part..
I have no problem with that.
You can overpower me at any time, but that doesn't mean the mechanic should be unfair

The defender can overpower the attacker at any time also.
The defender can dock all week and use alts for income (hell it's what I've done the last few wars).
The defender also can't be perma-killed.

You have not listed a single thing that the attacker has that the defender doesn't have access to also.
And if the attacker docks up to avoid a tough defender? Then they can't hunt any of their other wardec targets, they can't wait for traders at the undock of the trade hubs, they can't perform their PvP. So the defender can do exactly the same denial to the attacker.

Also Citadels yes will be a target for wardecs but assuming the defences on them are correctly balanced you will be able to take kills no matter what they bring to attack your citadel in highsec, even without defending pilots, making it actually worth fighting for the defender since they have a powerful battlestation to help. Till we get the numbers and till people start to actually regularly use citadels, we won't get a real idea of how wardecs will look in a year even with the current rules.

So no to any changes in any direction (other than maybe price structure changes, but that doesn't change the actual mechanics of the war)

Yes, everyone can use alts in NPC corps to keep playing if they wish. I have no problem with this. But the increased income of structures and other corporations benefits have to be earned and they are earned in this game by being vulnerable and thus content to the other players. If you don't want to deal with wars and just stay in the NPC corp or play only on alts in NPC corps, then go right ahead. That respects risk vs. reward and leaves more opportunity for players who are willing to defend themselves to earn more resources in the sandbox as compared to the risk averse NPC corp dwellers.

If anything is broken about wardecs it is how easy it is to enjoy the benefits of a corporation yet still be able to dodge a wardec if one comes a-knockin'. Don't get me wrong, players should always be able to leave or move corporations, but the ability to do so while still enjoying all the benefits of a corp is a major failure of game design. Hopefully the new structures will put an end to this nonsense.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the mechanic is absolutely fair. In fact, the only asymmetry in wardecs (cost, allies) advantage the defender. You just seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that the game puts you at risk when you are generating resources into the economy, yet not necessarily your opponent.

If you are uncomfortable with risk, just don't undock. Alternatively, CCP has even given you the ability to exchange real money in the form of PLEX to players who are willing to take that risk so you never have to risk becoming "an easy kill" again. You will never worry again about becoming someone else's content.

No cost, what dream land are you playing in?
Merc's do not join a war at least on the defending side for free, they expect to be paid for their efforts.
No I do not have any trouble with that they are providing a service and they deserve to be paid for it.
My point is that this statement by Vimsy is essentially a lie, unless she means that Concord or some other NPC portion of the game does not charge when you ask for allies.

I'm a director in a fairly well known highsec mercenary alliance and personally send 0 isk assistance offers frequently. If you like I can take screenshots of the notifications if you want.

Moreover mercenaries aren't the only people who are allowed to shoot at people in highsec, you can get help from anybody. For example if Vendetta Mercenary Group is in dire need of our help with a war we will happily ally in for free because we are friends, they don't need to pay us anything.

If you're going to claim I'm lying you're going to have to come up with something I can't trivially falsify.