EVE General Discussion

Wow. Why don't you link your wallet size or SP count too to prove your argument right instead of actual arguments. They're all about as impressive and relevant to the topic as your character age. I'll admit, that my knowledge and authority on the matter only comes from interviews given by the founders of EVE, so my opinion might not be as good source of info as the opinions of random old guys without arguments, but I'll still rely on those interviews over you if you don't mind.

What they've consistently stated is that the design of EVE was to create a living universe where players could impact the world and make a difference. Elite is often cited as an example of what they were going for. They specifically didn't design seperate PvP or PvE zones and the wardec system isn't some kind of accident or mistake they made. It's all according to their original stated design and my protest to your post comes directly from the fact, that you're inventing your own imaginary design to interpret things instead of using the publicly stated design goals.

The differences between the "zones" in EVE do have reasons for existing, but it's based largely on pure PvP reasons. The difference is between unregulated and regulated PvP. This is a reasonable design, that enables players to play the game without having to constantly take part in ship PvP, acts as a safe haven for new players and allows older ones to recover from their wounds in relative safety. You're still very vulnerable to PvP though and even free for all PvP, if you're a part of a player organization. They're clearly not PvE or PvP specific zones and large parts of the PvE content is only available in the most dangerous PvP zones of the game.

Now that CCP is updating kill mails to include the value of the destroyed items, then how about this one:

If, by the end of a war*, the aggressing corporation fails to destroy more assets value than the defending corporation every person who has been a member of the aggressing corporation at one time during the war declaration receives a -2.0 (up to discussion) to personal security status. Now THAT is putting something at stake, though the defending corp still does not gain much from winning.

*: A war ends when either the aggressing corporation stops paying or is forced to surrender. If the defending corp surrenders there will be no security standing penalties to the aggressing corp.

Well... there isn't really a true or false solution to this problem, only a good or bad solution but you will know after it has been implemented.

One thing I do like about the article that there needs to be some reward for de attacker and the defender. They both need to be rewarded for the kills they make. Docking up and refuse to fight should be discouraged, both for the attacker and defender.

One thing the author talks about is the PvP alt corps.. but what about the PvE alt corps? If he thinks PvP alt corps are bad because they mitigate the risk, same goes for PvE alt corps.. how many big alliances have an alt corp to trade and move stuff safely?

I think the wardec system should go altogether and a new system should be in place. Instead of wardeccing, everybody should have an option to pay a fee for protection, either from Concord or a merc corp or even no fee at all.. Players who do not pay a fee have the most risk to be attacked where people with protection from Concord have the less risk to be attacked but pay a price for it. This makes PvP and PvE alot more fluent.

The whole idea is dumb as fck, made up by folks who clearly have no understanding of how things really work.

Not being able to cancel a war halfway the week means you can't offer a ransom to be "left alone" until a full week has passed, it does nothing for the "oops, the deccers got into something they can't handle" because if push comes to shove that really isn't going to make any difference. In short, a dumb idea made up by a clueless person.

Basing cost on corp size is also ******** as fck, at least with the current numbers shown. I'll be the first one to agree that right now decking a corp is hilariously cheap but the suggested cost is just dumb and, again, can only have been dreamt up by someone who clearly doesn't like PVP or doesn't understand what EVE is about... quantity over quality, really?

Actually, the proposed ideas on fanfest (and round table issues afterwards) really show that the guys working on it should go do something else, like revamping mining or something. I know this all sounds harsh but I have zero respect for people who decide to implement changes to things they have no clue on.

Arbitrary objectives for wars are just ridiculous and won't do anything except open doors to exploits. And besides that: shooting structures in empire is just horrible.

Quite. Mind you, I'm not "attacking" the guy in question, it's nothing personal. I'm raging against the decision to put someone in charge of stuff he has no affinity with, something so important and fundamental in EVE as wars.

Hmm im not sure. I still think the new mechanics looks a bit messy, its like someone has said we need to fix that so we shall just put some blanket mechanics in, with no real thought around wars at all.
I mean making the cost higher to dec large alliances, ok I can see a point here, more targets, more cost, but this depends on how much more tha cost is going to be. Sometimes the only way to actually fight back to the larger alliances is to war dec them in empire, because you are just goingto get blobbed in nullsec. So i am hoping this isnt the CSM 0.0 whiners crying they get shot on the jita undock and CCP protecting their already risk free game as it is.

I agree something has to be 'fought over' Most wars start because you want something, there isnt just a war to kill people, theres some end game. I like the idea of some war chest that you win, but if its just a dec fee, its not going to much and not worth fighting over, so maybe something more considerable perhaps?
Maybe you should actually put something on the line thats valuable? Maybe POCOS? Could be the prize? Becuase thats really all you can 'own' in non nullsec areas.

Maybe we make sov in highsec/lowsec, radical I know but the only way you can shoot something that belongs to someone in highsec/lowsec is by war deccing them. You can only war dec them if they actually have sov, the end game is to take the sov, wars still last a week at a time, in order for each side to try regain sov. I do think that we would need to severely limit the number systems any one alliance/corp can hold, infact a constellation at max, no more.

If someone declares war there has to be something that says 'you lost idiot' dont try wardec me again consequence, not jsut a war dec, opps we losing lets stop paying the dec fee. I think one good idea is if an attacker retracts a war becuase they are losing or whatever, the defender has the chance to carry on that war for free for another week.

This is a disturbing trend i've noticed since Dominion, which was supposed to dramatically change war dynamics in 0.0. They start off saying one thing, but then back down later and only tweak it slightly. I sometimes wonder if devs playing the game along with players makes them sympathetic to whines of a vocal minority, when they should instead soldier on with what's best for the game overall.

But in this case, i still think war is war, and it's never 'fair'. You can either have wars in hisec along with all the unfairness war brings with it, or you remove the ability to have hisec wars altogether. Anything else and it's simply not war anymore.

Now, if only they'd also allow 'unfairness' in 0.0 wars, instead of catering to casuals. It's ridiculous that people can leave things completely undefended and get around to defending it much, much, later. In real war if you leave something undefended, you lose it, even to a small force. Why is all this care and attention put into ensuring everything is fair for 0.0 people, while people in hisec are told to HTFU?

This is a terrible idea. Good merc corps can be at war a significant percentage of time. This would make it impossible for them to recruit while doing business. I really wish people would think things through before they suggest them.

A "cooldown" where a new recruit can't participate in a war for 1-24 hours would be just as effective at stopping what we and others have done in the past.

As for penalizing quitting a corp that is at war: just prevent the player from rejoining that corp for a fixed period of time. If you bail on a corp, whether they're on offense or defense, you can't rejoin it for 30 days.

Because CCP think that there is only 0.0 in EVE.
And thats the case because only few of DEVs actually play the game and those who play play it only in 0.0.
CCP need to get more perspectives on things in EVE, one is one is not enough to create and maintain the game.