Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Both wrong. Wars are only needed to be able to remove player structures in HiSec. What players do with it is another story.

Then what's the point?

The point is that there aggression can be stopped, if even for a short amount of time.
If you come at me in a Vexor, and I blap you, there's nothing saying you can't come at me with another Vexor. However, you'd still have lost that original Vexor and have to get a new one, which is a delay on your aggression.
I essentially won that scenario. If this continues to happen over and over, you're either going to get a stronger ship, or you're going to give up because you've come to the realization that you cannot beat me.

The structure suggestion is a way to allow the stronger entity to vault your aggression. You can still re-aggress, but it takes time and resources just as any other pvp activity within Eve.

In comparison to the Vexor reference, the current mechanic is like me shooting at your ship, but no matter how much more powerful I am, i can never destroy it. Therefore, if I want to keep my ships, my best bet would be to just avoid fighting with you.

Edit..
Auto correct is annoying as hell..

No, your comment is a perfect example of the craziness you are asking for. You want your King to be not allowed to die if you manage to take your opponent's Queen. Why should that be allowed? Why shouldn't the pieces on the board be allowed to decide who is going to be the winner of the match rather than some arbitrary rule that one side gets to be immune to loss if certain conditions are met?

The purpose of game of Chess (and Eve Online) is for one player to defeat the other player. The integrity of these PvP games is undermined if one player can make it so the other side cannot take anymore pieces. Throwing out more analogies it's as inane as if you made a rule that if you score 3 runs in a single inning in baseball the other team loses their next at-bat. You can't just lock the other side out of playing the game for having a bad inning.

None of this silliness makes these games better. Eve is a PvP game where players and corporations are suppose to compete and shoot each other - that is the game. Making playing the game impossible if you lose a single battle is clearly a bad idea that has no chance of being implemented. I again suggest you head back to the drawing board and consider some other proposals to lessen the problems you perceive of wardecs. Maybe start with the "social corp" proposal? That one seems to be a good way to protect corps like your former corp that do not want or are unable to engage in wars.

False counter-argument as it doesn't factor the time difference.

A single 1v1 lasts a short amount of time.
A war lasts a week.
The structure bash would take significantly longer than it would to kill a Vexor.

It's not a 1 to 1 comparison.
If I destroy your vexor, you're locked out of the station for 1 minute, it takes time to buy/fit a new Vexor (assuming you don't have one ready), and you must the re-locate and engage me.

In comparson to a Wardec.
If I destroy your dec (structure), your war ends after a set amount of time, it takes time to start a new wardec (unless you start a new corp), and you must the re-dec me with the 24hr window.

So it's a 10 to 20 minute activity compared to a 1 week activity.


In Eve, there's always a penalty for losing at an activity.
In the case of straight combat, it's the loss of your ship.
In null, it's potentially the loss of SOV and/or ship loss.
In low, it's potentially the loss of territorial control and/or ship loss.
In WH, it's potentially the loss of territorial control, possibly a POS, and/or ship loss.
In wardecs, you can lose your ship, but you cannot lose the mechanic. Unfortunately for the defender, you cannot win the mechanic and in order to even lose, you have to either drop corp, roll corp, surrender, or quit Eve.
So the defender can't even lose without having to jump through hoops.... But I'm fine with this, as other mechanics typically comes with some sort of significant loss which can't be established as well in HS, so the 'loss' mechanic on the defender's end is likely fine as is.
However, the aggressor should be able to lose just as they would in any other activity.
As it sits now, if an aggressor feels they have lost, they can simply drop the dec which has no significant loss to investment, unless the war is made mutual.

However, I'm not sure if the evelopedia is incorrect or what
Mutual Wars



If the aggressor can still retract the war when it's made mutual, then they don't even have to face up to the same negative aspects of losing that the defender does.

I understand that they paid for the wardec, but that payment is only for the ability to interact.
This is no different than me having to pay for a ship in order to do any activities in Eve.


I'm not at all against wardecs.
I'm not at all FOR their removal.

I would like to see a mechanic implemented that makes loss as an aggressor just as punishing as loss is to a defender, as well as losing while aggressing in any other activity.


Now, I had proposals within my suggestion that also made loss more detrimental to the defender.
IE, if you drop corp, you cannot join a new one for 2 weeks or whatever.
Also, if you fold the corp, the CEO at the time the dec was started cannot start a new dec at any time.
If they surrender, then they obviously lose whatever is tied to the conditions.

My intent is to provide something withing the mechanic that makes pew pew more likely to happen, thus people come to learn the entertainment value that comes from pvp, even if you lose a ship or the war... Maybe it would help to expand pvp through out Eve.
Again, the only way to get the vast majority of defenders to become actively involved in wardecs is to incentivize them fighting by hanging treats in their face.. In this case, the treat is the end of the wardec.
Some entities might start to enjoy the involvement and start making the wars mutual.

I understand that this would likely hinder the 1man or small entity decs, but I personally don't see this as a problem.
They have no intent to actually fight.. They want kills... A 1 man operation can pull off certain acts, but other mechanics do not provide it with the ease the the dec mechanic does.
you can go out and solo roam in a marauder.. The mechanic doesn't support your inability to lose, but this is instead determined by your capabilities and the targets you engage.
The wardec mechanic should apply that same theory.

There has been the claim made that this hinders wars where the aggressor has actual beef with the defender.
To this I disagree. It allows the wardec mechanic to establish which entity is the stronger of the two, thus the more powerful one wins.
If the aggressor is afraid to lose the dec and/or isn't powerful enough, he can always pay a merc corp to handle it for him.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!

The aggressor gets to essentially say "Naa uhh! You didn't beat me!", because the mechanic does not provide a way for the aggressor to lose.
Sure, you can take all their pieces (destroy their ships), but it's as if they have no king on the board to which the defender can actually win.

... And if the aggressor feels they can't win, they essentially go "Naa uhh, you don't win because I quit!!"


Now, I may not be proposing the best of suggestions, but the structure mechanic is the only thing I can think of that can't be manipulated.

If you base it off isk killed vs isk lossed, than at some point in the losses the aggressor will stop undocking, thus denying anymore losses.
if it's based off killing a certain number of pilots within the corp, the aggressor will only undock with what can be lost.

Building around a structure that can be both equally defended and attacked is the only mechanic that makes sense.

If you can come up with something better, than by all means do so... Either way, the current mechanic is broken in a way that deters pvp, reduces retention, adds to the pool of risk averse players, and is just all around NOT FUN which is the most important factor because Eve is a GAME first a foremost.. If you can't have fun in a game, then why play?

If that's the case, the aggressor shouldn't be allowed to end the wardec at any time without the consent of the defender, or quitting corp, folding corp, surrendering, or quitting Eve.

However, there still needs to be an adjustment to the mechanic that keeps large entities from picking on little ones.
I understand that Eve is unfair, but if you're outnumbered in low/wh/null, you always have the ability to retreat to HS.

The wardec mechanic has no means of retreat when you're heavily outnumbered apart from dropping to an NPC corp.
This only help to add to the trivial nature of corp,s as well as establish an issue that the vast majority of wardeccers complain about, which is everyone being in NPC corps and is a mechanic within Eve that will NEVER change because NPC corps are the only thing that helps to keep CCP's retention rate as high as it is.

Correct... That's not the problem.
The problem is that it still hinders and/or denies your ability to interact with your preferred play style, as you're either having to deal with them every so often, or having to keep you non-pvp ships off the field because they will pop them at first chance.

You'll likely argue that the defender can 'defend' their non-pvp ships, but that is still hindering their interaction with their preferred playstyle, as most of the fleet is having to sit around waiting for an attack that won't happen.

You'll likely argue that point, in saying something to the like of "if they're not attacking, what's the problem? Just do your thing" but that also ignores the fact that they WILL attack when you're not there to defend.

It's a catch 22... Damned if you do defend, damned if you don't defend.


See, the wardec mechanic allows the aggressor to interact with their preferred playstyle of pvp (instead of just going to lowsec) and hinders or denies the defender's interaction with their preferred style of PVE.

If it's not ok to PVE unhindered, than it shouldn't be ok to PVP unhindered when it hinders your opponent's interaction with their playstyle.

You'll argue that Eve is a pvp game, to which I argue that it has PVE within the game.. PVP trumps PVE at any given time, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be given a means in which to return to PVE by proving their strength over their aggressor.

If the defender loses, you can continue to hinder/deny their ability to PVE thus allowing them to continue PVP, but if the aggressor loses, the defender can hinder/deny their ability to PVP thus allowing them to continue PVE.

See how that works?

To elaborate on one of my last points.

Eve already allows PVP to trump PVE at any given time.. Thus still holding onto the fact that Eve is a pvp focused game.

However, with the mechanic built around a structure, it allows the defender to return to PVE 'IF' they're willing to engage in pvp and be successful at it.
No, bashing a structure IS NOT PVP. However, this then reverts back to the same argument FOR the defender.
If the aggressor is unwilling to PVP to protect their structure, than they should not be allowed to have their wardec, just as the defender cannot have their PVE if they don't pvp.

That said, both sides would still stand equal chance of losing even if they do pvp, but this is no different than every other aspect of Eve.

So, it all boils down to whomever is more willing to pvp and/or more successful at PVP'ing will get their way.

I don't see this as a problem and it fits perfectly well into a game built around pvp, especially when that game shares the field with PVE.

Example...
I'm running an anom in null and you warp in on me.
Your pvp has now trumped my PVE.
If you kill me, i am denied my interaction with PVE for a certain amount of time, and you can continue PVP.
If I kill you, you are denied your interaction with PVP for a certain amount of time, and I can continue PVE.

This is the same as what I'm trying to suggest; The only difference being that since wardecs are mechanics based as opposed to ship based, the mechanic then needs to provide a method in which a victor can be determined.


Edit...
If necessary, it can be set that if the structure is destroyed, the dec continues for the full duration of that week (thus the aggressor gets what they paid for) but would be unable to extend the war and be locked out of deccing that 'individual' corp/alliance for a set period.

2nd edit....
You may also be able to set it to where, if the defender never attacks the structure, the war becomes cheaper and cheaper each week, until it's free.
However, (under my suggested proposal of the aggressor paying more to outnumber the defender) you would have to continue paying the difference for outnumbering the defending corp.

You guys have got way too hung up on this word. It doesnt have to be very scientific. I said that i consider a dec where the defenders never undock or the aggressors themselves dont make use of their decs to be low quality. Maybe i do mean 'meaning' kaarous, but what does it really matter? Whether you agree or not with my definitions is irrelevant. Just the proposal.

One of my intentions is to lower the frequency of these 'low quality/not meaningful' decs and increase the frequency of decs where defenders undock and/or where aggressors put more consideration into their decs than spamming assistance or 'they appeared in local'.

Its worth noting that the proposal does not stop you making any amount of these decs, but it does allow other players to punish you for it. I consider that a good combination of meaningful choices, interaction and contest.

@Pedro
Its more like destroying the structure is check mate. It just ends the game (dec).