Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You should re-read the thread. I don't think you'll find anyone saying "the war dec system if fine." Most will say it is not fine, the problem of large numbers of active war decs is a symptom not the cause of the problem. Further, that trying to "fix the system" is problematic in that it has to to do with the outlooks of different subsets of the population.

Look at your first explanation as to why HS indy corps are at a disadvantage: coordination. That you cannot fix via mechanics. Seriously, this is your ball why not run with it? Tell us what changes to mechanics will "solve this problem"? The NS and wardec corps they've apparently solved it without a change to the mechanics, but go ahead and tell us what change will solve this problem?

Second your list skill points and PvP experience, again you cannot fix this (for the most part) via mechanics changes. If a player is making choices for both the SP he earns and the amount of PvP how will a change in the mechanics fix that? Same thing with combat skills (I am presuming you are talking about how to actually do PvP here and not combat related skill points). How would a change to mechanics address this?

In short, a sub group of players have made choices in the game that have put them on unequal footing...and that is a mechanics issue? I am just not seeing it. So lay it out for us....explain how the mechanics can be changed to solve that list of problems you have given?

Nice moving of the goalposts.
None of what you listed is impossible in highsec sure, but also none of what you listed is an answer to a single thing I listed.

There are special mechanics that enable Null sec to operate like it does. That's plain and simple facts. High Sec has different mechanics which call for different responses in some areas to fighting & risk, and which do pretty much invalidate things like intel channels.

But the main thing really nerfing high sec corps is, why bother to fight at all?
All the new structures are nerfed relative to Null sec, dramatically in the case of their defences. A L POS with guns has more fire-power than an XL Citadel in highsec does.
There are dozens of stations to a constellation, in some cases even a single system has 10+.
Between the cost to run a structure, the cost to replace it when it gets blown up, and the cost of PvP ships, it's often cheaper to just live out of a station. At which point the only care for a corp is mission tax evasion.

You have to fix the reasons to be in a corp in highsec before you can even start to look at war decs.

So a game that advertises that you can be or do anything that you want is really just a pvp game and if you thought otherwise you should go play something else. You could have just said to begin with.

I have to disagree with there not being a problem with the mechanics (Though agree that the OP & others have things upside down). Though I think we agree when it comes to the OP & needing co-operation.
The problem is High Sec most of the time you are mechanically punished by co-operating, and when you aren't punished you are pretty much given zero or minimal reward for it. A high sec where co-operation is much more rewarded will create a much healthier group of players who deal much better with things.

Take for example the elephant in the woods everyone loves to hate, incursions. These are a perfect example of a mechanic where co-operation was rewarded, and strong resilient communities grew around it as a result. (We can argue over balance of the income later, but the general principle remains the same regardless).

Hence why I'm going to continue my calls to reduce high sec station numbers by 90%. Systems without a Capsuleer accessible station should become the rule, not the rare exception. Reducing station numbers by 90% should still leave a docking location every 2-4 systems in high sec, which to me is plenty.
And to give High Sec Citadels/EC's/Etc the same bonuses as Null (& obviously low get this as well). It may seem weird, but they are at risk constantly, have weaker defences due to no bombs which are the best anti sub cap defence, no PDS to deal with drones, and nothing stops any null group rolling in with their sub cap fleets if they really get annoyed enough at a high sec group. POS were weaker because they could dodge wardecs meaning they weren't at the same risk.

At that point you have significant rewards for forming an organisation, and rewards for fighting, because you can be forced out of a system, or even a small area, if you don't defend your Citadels/EC's/All the others.
And you do have control over the docking, because there are no stations in your system (Unless you build in one with a station in which case you made a choice that was easy to avoid).
And therefore you will get corps growing and organising because it's not a waste of time.

Then you get all the rest of the stuff you talked about happening as a natural evolution of the good corps in high sec.

I've been here a decade, I'm not going anywhere. But I have noticed patterns, and while EVE isn't for everyone, ive seen allot of people get "griefed" out of the game, primarily industry players. Especially the last couple of years. CCP doesn't consider it griefing, but they are losing subs because if people don't want to pvp, they're not going to pvp. Add that to what Nevyn mentioned about hi sec corps becoming more and more pointless it's breaking down the social aspect of the game for a large number of paying subscribers. Just in my corp alone, since our war decs started rolling in, couple miners started training combat skills, but most of the industry players just haven't logged on in over a week.

Do you think the game is sustainable? The more people leaving, the more people in starter corps, the less people to war dec, the more remaining corps get blanket dec'ed, the more quit or join starter corps, the less people to war dec.

The penalties tied to using those tools are much more detrimental to highsec industry corporations.

I gave the example of Red Frog above. It would be unwise for them to keep their freighter pilots in corp due to wardecs, correct? You're not winning fleet battles with freighters. These tools are not nearly as accessible to highsec indy corps.

Mechanics do not need to be considered impossible to be considered unbalanced.

What is the justification in keeping this disadvantage present in the game? As you said earlier these tools are meant to be universal (as they are in just about every other mmo for that matter)

Correct, the penalty occurs when using the tools in conjuction with a corp full of indy toons i.e. low risk, high reward targets.
How could a corporation such as red frog put their freighter pilots in corp and not be wardec'd?
It's unavoidable, and they will not win any dec in a fleet of freighters.

So they take the practical route and just keep their freighters out of corp and an alt in corp, which is a penalty in its own right.



Look at it the other way:
Let's assume that a "hypothetical and perfectly designed system" was in place that only pure industry highsec corps could take advantage of, which prevented them from being wardec'd.

What impact would this hypothetical system have? You cant wardec red frog's freighters now, you wouldnt be able to wardec them after. The only difference is that they now have unfettered access to the in-game tools other corps can currently take full advantage of.

This is why I argue it is a design flaw. The only difference in the above scenario is that the corp gets the option to use corp tools on the same level as everyone else.

Kindly explain to us why low risk, high reward targets should no longer be viable targets.

Sooo, we're at 5 pages on yet another wardec thread.

Yet somehow nobody ever changes their mind about anything, everyone involved has semi-valid points that are too tainted with personal bias to have an objective discussion, and it has devolved in to an exercise in semantics and **** slinging that encourages CCP to completely ignore the topic altogether since there's not a clear majority to appease with any changes.

If it weren't for the gambling ban I'd start a pool on how many pages this gets to before a lock for being unproductive.