Topic moved to Player Features and ideas discussion
HmmâŚ
Let me see, should i believe CCPs own internal findings conducted using all available data or should i believe some random bittervet that plays EVE and THINKS he knows what is going on but is apparently completely clueless.
Well, not offense random dude playing EVE but im going with CCPs own internal data.
Iâm arrogant, admittedly so, my naming choice alone proves that but even Iâm not so blindingly and belligerently arrogant that i presume to know more about player retention data that CCP that has all the facts and has clearly posted what inescapable conclusion those facts have uncovered, that players that would have stayed and played EVE, quit and never came back following a wardec. These are players that CCP has concluded would have stayed on playing a PVP game.
People who quit because they died are not PvPers.
It is a simple reality.
They were the same gate fodder we have been killing for years.
1 Like
Take whatever bittervet stance you want but know that in the end CCP is going to change the wardec system.
Your claim is that people that perma-quit following a death in pvp were not pvpâers. Disproving this statement only requires a single data point of someone staying playing EVE after dying to a pvp killer. I am such a person, i died to a pvp gank within a couple months of playing and many times after but it wasnt till i played >5 years that i took up pvping.
One data point supplied and your point is proven invalid and I win just as easily as I always do.
youâre one person
your data point would be valid if the majority of people stayed after being pvpâed (which theyâre not)
you only won at looking like a goofus 
CCP is smart enough to know that starry eyed PvE types join EVE even though they should not, and then later quit.
When PvEers join a PvP game it never works out. You canât mix oil and water.
You can. Itâs called an emulsion and is quite a common and important thing used in science and cooking.
In other words there is room for pure PvE players in Eve.
2 Likes
Against his quote, if you understand both English and Debate, i won. That you lack understanding isnt my problem or my problem to fix.
You can restate your losing argument as many times as you desire but losing arguments dont become winning arguments through repetition.
p.s. while i had fun crushing you in a debate as i always do, eventually even winning becomes tiresome, so until we meet again.
Bye!
JA
If you had any idea how many times we have heard this same old drivelâŚ
1 Like
Well, this thread looks as good as any, and I love my 2 cents.
So, how about instead of picking one mechanic for wardecs, why not make a whole bunch.
IMMEDIATE FIX: Make it to were a corp can wardec up to 10 and an alliance can wardec 25 different entities.
Future additions,
1: Turn the first fix into a Open warfare declaration, basically same rules as a traditional wardec, but with a twist, keep the caps on how many can be issued, but make it a cost variable also. The more that is killed the less it cost, the longer the inactivity of the war, the more it costs. {This is a base idea}
2: Make a sort of objective based war vs structures, points of interest, or even incorperate it into faction warfare (side thought, make special faction warfare declarations) Using this idea as a base for a structure killing declaration allows people to defend or tear down structures without openly having to declare war, could even limit legal fighting to within loaded grid of target structures.
3: Juggernaut, well, some people like to fight, so make it able for players to intentionally rebel against the police (at great cost) and fight anyone, yes anyone, in a system that they choose to contest. (Why let Sanshaâs have all the fun) Make a game out of wardecs, not just hey I want to shoot at those guys. Of course you would have to put some limits to this mechanic (no trabe hub routes and such) or anything outside the thought of reasonable fair game play.
4: Mutual war, this is a video game, some people just want to fight each other at all times, OR maybe make it to where players can mutually decide where they want to fight and add Green Zones (Select systems) that they choose to be open warfare fighting zones.
Maybe add a few, maybe add all of these ideas, use them in different combinations or different ways. Wardecs have always been a problem, and there really isnât a mechanic to teach new players what they are, and how real a threat they can be.
Can High-Sec get same love?
So what happens when alliance A has 25 wars. Corp B has 10 wars. And B joins AâŚ
Do we get 35 wars for A in which case people just use alt corps to import wars.
Does Corp B lose all their wars in which case you now invented a way to shed wars.
Can you not join an alliance at war in which case you can now troll null alliances by keeping them under a permanent wardec so no one can join them.
And we havent even looked at how wars breed when leaving an alliance here.
Simple solution, Corp join alliance with wardecs, wardecs are shuffled and 10 are droped back to the cap of 10, only applies to aggressors, not recipiants.
Havenât read everything but the OP doesnât make much sense to me. Like, youâre declaring war so you canât even dock up ?
The only that needs to be changed in the current wardec systems is, imo, neutral logis because these are quite ridiculous as it is.
1 Like
You can always tell the people who have been in wars (and undocked) versus the theory crafters.
Just out of curiosity, why isnât the npc part of New Eden being looked at for New design content?
For example dealing with war decâs:
a corporation gets war decâd in high security space.
that corporation can get in contact with some of the npc corporations
who handle military actions in the area.
they can negotiate a defense fleet to protect their assets during the war.
(cost per hour/per size of fleet/per day).
it would give smaller high sec corporations a fighting chance at surviving an attacking war corp
as well as generate content for high security space that would be different than the status quo.
To make New Eden not feel so lonely:
its one of the most overlooked ideaâs for most of New Eden(IMO).
New Eden is dark, quiet, and lonely in most systems of space.
(yes in high sec systems can be empty for hours if not longer)
and it would be great to see CCP work on more life in the cosmos.
I for one look forward to the day I can undock from a local station and see npcâs doing the same,
coming and going among the stars like I do.
Mining asteroids (yeah I know they do that but it has so much more potential)
Hunting local pirates (npc vs npc can be a thing so why not work on it?)
hauling cargo (moving their stuff, or running courier for others, trading, etc.)
scouting for bountied players (within a reasonable limitation)
traveling around exploring (who doesnât like doing that?)
breathing life into a stale and uneventful space reinvigorating immersion.
Of course I know its not one of the most important problems facing capsuleers on a daily basis but it would be great to see just how populated the space lanes can become when your sharing it not only with your fellow capsuleers but also with that npc who just bought a ton of Quafe and is hauling it to another system nearby to sell for a profit and hopefully put food on the table for his or her family back home, or that other npc who just found out there were pirates nearby he or she could squash for a quick buck to grab that cold one he or she has been jonesin for all week.
as a note all of this is purely from an opinionated point of view and I do welcome constructive criticism and/or additions to make it better
How about you start by posting in the right forum section? This way you have a chance to look like someone who knows what heâs doing. Choosing the wrong forum, picking the first one that comes to mind, always looks foolish and ignorant. Try Features & Ideas discussion.
Well It would seem to be a general discussion on the topic so a forum for general discussion would be best suited for its location. furthermore thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment on it, much appreciated.
Hey could we talk about the topic instead of things around it, like âwhere it belongsâ ? I think itâs fine here.
I feel the need to tell you that CCP themselves made highsec feel very quiet and lonely. The great decline in local activity started some time in 2013 and got worse and worse until we got what we have now. Systems with lots of people in them and no one talking ⌠and yes, the talking in local made a system feel way more alive already, way more than activity in space could do, ALSO because of the fact that these social interactions have had the tendency to end up as activity in space!
Your desire for more activity in space makes sense, but putting NPCs there shouldnât be too much of a priority, because - basically - thatâs the playersâ jobs! You can thank CCP for making space boring. You can thank CCP for creating a situation where people donât want to randomly talk to each other with whatever outcomes that might bring in space.
Whatâs a REALLY bad way moving forward is having CCP ruin something and then âfixingâ that not by undoing the damage, but instead by building up on the broken thing. Like ⌠theyâve implemented that chat bubble thinking it would get people to talk to each other more. Thatâs just so absolutely dumb, literally all of the community rejected it for various reasons, the upmost one being that it was a gigantic usability issue.
2 Likes