Delivering PvP content through Agency and Resource Wars

FYI, it was CCP Falcon who described EVE as “cut-throat” (my paraphrase.) But, the next time I make a few snide remarks about his grasp on … let’s say, EVE, … I’ll be sure to cite you as an authority that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

As to the whole “Puh-Tay-Toe — Pah-Taa-Tah” argument,

1 Like

FW sites would be fine with accel gates in high sec. Just implement the idea that CCP had a while back on making any player a suspect when entering through the accel gate and youd have all the pvp content youd like. To prevent farming on the beacon make the accel gate mechanics spit you out at a larger radius than the 5km bubble it is now which gives uncertainty to those camping inside.

Another class would be open warps like the FW larges but they would be Dscan immune as if someone had dropped a scan inhibitor at the center. You can warp in at any range but you cant tell if someones there.


So, PvP players complain how they waste time roaming around looking for others to do solo or small gang fights when all they usually find is ships out of their hull class and or overpowered blob fleets

OP comes up with an idea to help promote solo / small gang PvP in High Sec and all of a sudden out comes the torches and pitchforks.

Simply hilarious.

1 Like

It’s almost like not all EvE players think alike.

How novel. :expressionless:

–Bemused Gadget


Oh wow, aren’t you the fatuous one.


That’s tough. Maybe just move on then?

Because this approach is the CCP vision and the foundation of EVE. This might help:

Can you please stop trying to change what EVE is and what it is intended to be? The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t give you the right to demand changing it and ruining it for everyone who do like it.


1 Like

Do I seem like someone who hasn’t heard the Golden Rules of EVE Online???
Rule #1 Always fly your Blingiest ship, fit for PVE, so we can gank you in our cheap, disposable ships.
Rule #2 is NOT don’t Store what you can’t afford to lose.
Rule #3 High Security don’t mean no High Security, I don’t know where you get that from! High Security means you consent to get ganked!

And it amazes me these days that Adults can actually say “High Security don’t mean High Security” and are completely oblivious to what they just said!

But, what amazes me the most is that so many EVE Online players consistently accuse me of “Demanding Changes” and/or “Trying to change” EVE Online. ARE YOU EVEN READING WHAT I POST???

1 Like

It is hard to read what you post when you have sentence clumps like that.

And I am not sure if this is sarcasm or ignorance.

1 Like
try that.
or, go back to the school you graduated from and demand a REFUND.

1 Like

You seem mad kid. Sorry you don’t understand that you need to double space after a sentence. It isn’t that complex, I believe you should read your link first.

I admit I am not that good at the written English form, even though it is my native tongue. But I also learned 2 languages at the same time when I was younger so I get things confused easy.

1 Like

Don’t bother replying, all they’re trying to do is goad you into doing personal attacks. Just make your reply with a flag on their troll remarks.

High security doesn’t mean complete security. Simple enough, eh?


Tbh, all High-sec needs is a proper rework of WarDecs.

I still largely support the idea of the War Room module proposed on Crossing Zebras. If you don’t have a stationary asset that you are ready to lose, you should have no business starting wars.

Hell, they could even invent a singular type of structure, cheaper than the others (100mils?) but that could only fit this War Room module? This would make sure Wars are still affordable enough for smaller entities while giving the defender something to go against.


I don’t know why you need to drag Resources Wars into this. Frankly if there is only one thing Resources Wars did is showing that the ship-limiting tech is here and can be done in EVE.

EVE’s PvP only needs to solve 2 problems right now:

  • Time: the playing population is aging and has less time to roam around for hours, and the next generation has attention issues.
  • Blobs: EVE is not about equal fights, but still it should encourage ‘competitive’ fights. Nobody will play a game that they always lose, and even blobbers know that what they do participate in killing the amount of players willing to engage out there.

The Agency can solve the Time part, whatever it is, it could point players to it so they can have their 2 or 3 fights of the night and call it a day.
The problem is the Blobs part, and as long as we don’t have ship-limiting features, it will remain a problem. The Resources Wars gates showed that it is possible to have those features in the game.


Why not use the CCP FOB resources for this? For every war dec by the attacker a FOB spawns somewhere in high sec space that can be found and attacked. A successful destruction of the FOB would mean the war is cancelled and perhaps a portion of the war dec fee is dropped to the defenders in way of isk tokens like the bounty reimbursement tags.

What would have to be balanced is HPs and time to destroy the FOB, as well as % of war dec fee that would drop as a reward for winning the war as a defender paid by the aggressors and where in high sec would the FOB spawn. I think the spawning mechanic and how easy or hard it would be to find the thing would be the hardest challenge. On grid? Celestial overview visible? Jumps from war dec corps HQ, constellation, region, other regions? Do the attackers know where it is? How would the defenders find it?

What of war dec corps that have hundreds of active wars? What of war allies finding and joining the war to simply kill the FOB? Announcements like POS/Citadels for the attackers? Prior intel for the aggressors for the FOB location? Semi static spawning location algorithms? How quickly would it be able to be gamed for locations and taken down?

Pros. It would give defenders something to shoot that the attackers didnt put up as a static beacon for some win condition.

Cons. Would severely nerf large war dec amounts as well as single man corps that cannot defend.

I think I get what you are trying to do by tying FOBs to this. Pretty much try to have FOBs be manually spawnable by groups that would be interested in running them instead of waiting for them to spawn in their space.

However I don’t think it is a good idea to tie two systems that have 2 very different goals. FOBs are supposed to be PvE group content (and supposedly “content” generators by having one fleet stand somewhere to become content for another, too bad the PvE is so contriving that it will likely never happen reliably), very opposed to WarDecs.

Plus, even if tying both wasn’t a bad idea, you saw the very problem of your idea, how do you configure the war with a FOB you have no control over?
With the War Room module, you can configure the war, number of allies permitted, length, price, permitted size of the target, through the module, its options, and the structure. Infinitely better in my opinion, plus the defender doesn’t have to worry about finding the thing as much as with an hidden FOB.

1 Like

Only portion of the FOB is the image and the hps as a structure in space. Seeing as its already all coded into Eve theres no extra code minus the change from spawning normally to the war dec mechanic.

Seeing as the hps are for a group level it would match roughly what a defender would need to chew through in order to successfully defend. And no I wouldnt do timers just a one and done defense. Which makes the spawning and finding portions much more interesting to play with as a balance issue. Seeing as FOBs would be kinda everywhere then to some degree and people would get much more used to seeing the clutter. Then finding specific war dec FOBs and selling info on them might be a thing.

The other thing you could tie to it is NPCs. Depending on how easy it is or to create a minimum DPS floor and minimum tank floor. Not a DPS limiter like citadels but simply if you dont bring X amount of dps regen affects you like POCOs and if you cant tank Y amount you cant do it either. Ironically both of these could be balanced by the corp/alliance player size on the defenders side.

See trying to use up existing code is easier than trying to recreate everything from the ground up. I dont want CCP to rewrite a bunch of code from the ground up for new features if they dont have to. Then you often get half implementation and it doesnt live up to something, so instead I like ideas that have CCP code attached to it already for slight revamps and reusages. If that makes sense.:wink:


I liked your post so I am not disagreeing with you. I just want to say that I made a mistake starting this thread without mentioning that my intention was to replicate the experience I had with new players while trying out Resource Wars. Rather than sounding like I am trying to “fix” PvP in EVE. I have no opinions about the “current state of PvP”.

I used to live in low sec and now live in null sec but went to high sec with an alt to try out Resource Wars when it first came out. Had a bit of fun running into new players and fleeting with them. Unfortunately, the whole thing failed. So, I was wondering if the same system could be recycled with a PvP (instead of mining) theme.

Other than the limiting the number and types of ships per site, I think there are other interesting technology from Resource Wars that could be recycled for the PvP themed version:

  • Flashy graphics that appears over the entire screen (e.g. site failure/completion in Resource Wars).
  • The cool looking giant numerical banners floating in space. :smiley:
  • Two NPC factions fighting each other (and the players).
  • Non-combat PvE objectives. Maybe NPCs would be the ones mining and PvP could revolve around ganking the Orca.
  • Separate, and quite worthless, LP store. We probably don’t want the PvP version to be worthwhile to camp or farm or have an impact on the economy. I bet people will still do it for fun PvP content or use it to train newbies in their corp etc.
1 Like

I would like to say, for the record, that I am NOT averse to commas and long sentences! please, USE COMMAS!

You may claim that you “…have no opinion…” on the “state of PvP…in EVE”, however, you DO have your own conception of what constitutes PvP.

The title of the thread includes the phrase “Delivering PVP content …” and this thread conceives of PvP at that which takes place between …1) Ships of equal strength. 2) Ships of Equal Value. 3) confrontations on level playing fields, in which the rules are the same for all parites, and 4) parties are prepared for the encounter they know is about to take place. Whether intended as criticism of EVE Online or NOT this is your conception of PvP! For example you did NOT request that High-Sec sites be accessible by Titans, with invisibility!

And this first clarification of your idea IS direct and explicit criticism of “…the state of PvP…” This piece of criticism points out that sites have been “bait” to lure in unsuspecting players and when those players are attacked the resultant encounter has been labeled “emergent PvP” which is clearly viewed negatively by you and which your idea is designed to eliminate.

Designed to eliminate in order to “…deliver PvP…”! Which further underscores the fact that you view what is labeled as “…emergent PvP…” as NOT true PvP and that IS criticism of “…the state of PvP…in EVE”!

Something like this was just announced at fanfest!

Abyssal Deadspace: allows cruisers only (T1, Navy, Pirate), allows only 1 player inside, have a scan-able exit point, gives you a PvP timer.

After 15-20 minutes, you pop out at the exit and is subject to open PvP by campers.

MUCH less clunky than what I was suggesting. I am for one really looking for some PvP action through this. :slight_smile: