You only look at this as black and white. Don’t. It’s about how much more it’s going to affect the weaker players.
In which case you argue that the current ability for excessively wealthy corps who focus on a weaker corp is flawed.
(hey look it’s been moved from general to Player features and ideas)
No. I’m saying they now have a chance to get out of it. Maybe you’re the guy who will stop killing once he has his fill of it, but others might not. What do you think will happen when players are driven into a corner with their backs to the wall and no way to get out?
They still have a way to get out of it. I did not delete their ability to leave a corp.
You’ve wrote they’d still be war targets.
Are they stuck in the corp that is war decced? The answer is no. They have an option. It comes with a risk. They gain a benefit at a cost.
Are they or are they not war targets? Your suggestion was to flag them as war targets even after they’ve left the corporation. Is this right?
The suggestion is that everybody in the corp or alliance is flagged a target when you declare war. Concord updates this list at war refresh time which remains unchanged.
1: learning to fight isn’t the issue. The issue is when you are clearly outmatched and cannot win. Your system would have these people, already defeated, be straight cannon fodder for an entire week for no reason. It also can be flipped back around to whomever is losing the war, no matter who started it. “Learn to fight” is just slinging mud on whomever the weaker person is, for no reason outside that they are the weaker party. Whether that’s due to numbers, active pilots, experience, or what, you’re essentially interested in further punishing people who have already given up. That serves no purpose.
2: Has overlap with #1, and if it were an option, the person would not have dropped out of the corp, and your system for punishing them would be irrelevant to the discussion.
3: Your system literally removes this as an option. Not only do you not allow the first part, you said you were tempted to have Concord prevent the second part. Do you not even read your own suggestion? We can end all good faith debate right here and now if you’re not even bothering to pay attention to your own suggestion. Lest you think you can evade this point…
4: And who wants to take on people who need protection? And how do you modify current highsec engagement rules to even make this possible? Why should any corporation burden the responsibility of defending an individual after his/her corporation has already disbanded?
5: See #4. If you were too weak and unable to defend yourself, I doubt any war corp will recruit you into their ranks.
6: Your assumption negates the entire point. A lot of people, myself included, have been up to the task of fighting back and engaging in PvP, but the corp itself lacked the infrastructure or leadership to do so. So leaving that corp, you would punish multiple dozens of individuals for the failings of the leadership of that corp.
I’m going to introduce point #7, something which you forgot which I will take this time to remind you of. You wardec corporations, not people. You cannot punish people for not taking part in a war since it is not, nor will it ever be, their war.
Why would any person join a corp under your ruleset? That they can be wardeced and that wardec will follow them like a Scarlet Letter for at least seven days, no matter what they do. And like Whitehound pointed out, if they do drop corp and inherit this mark of shame of yours, they don’t even have the benefit of corp assistance no matter how meager. That means they simply will not join corps, period.
Also I love the irony of you dismissing the concept of reduced Concord protection, but you actually went as far as to seriously argue for the complete removal of Concord protection.
Your idea fails completely on it’s face. There’s nothing in it to make people interested in staying in corp, only things to make them afraid to join. All stick and no carrot. Plus, it radically punishes them for the crime of joining a corp which wasn’t up to the task of defending itself. Why should any individual bear that responsibility?
So they remain targets until the aggressor ends the war.
Do you think this will get used to drive players not only into a defeat, but to make them stop playing entirely?
In the EVE I know that is kind of a given, wouldn’t you say?
Was it not your argument that NPC corp war ditching people should have lax Concord protection?
False: at the end of the week Concord updated your target allowed list to the current members of the corp. It would also update the people joining in to support the war. Agressors and Defenders. In the meantime people who have left the war remain outside the war and regain Concord protection with the cost of not being allowed to return to the corp they left. It was their decision to seek protection from the war with Concord’s support. Not the agressor, not the defender, but their own.
So they’ll get pummel for another week after they’ve realized they cannot fight back. This still isn’t only defeat, it’s punishing players for playing the game to the point where they can no longer play and for an entire week.
While I understand your will to punish players to the extreme where they can no longer play the game, will CCP not risk losing players or only allow you to deny them to play the game.
Actually no. I thought I made this quite clear. My argument was that people who were otherwise immune to wardecs by being in an NPC corp (or having freshly rolled a corp to escape a wardec) should be afforded less protection than those who were sitting in corps that were open and available to wardeccing (and therefore at player-driven risk via wardecs).
And at no point did I say we ought to remove protection completely. There will be no false equivalency here. You are advocating for complete removal of Concord protections for any persons that were members of a failed corp. That is less “let’s encourage fights and/or stronger corp ties” and more “just have CCP lead these people to my guns so I can get my kills”.
You have just quoted current war dec mechanics as a penalty.
How so? I seem to be understanding your suggestion wrong.
False. Wardec mechanics are between two corps, not individuals. I will not let you forget that or play it down. You are attempting to change the idea of wardecs as persons verses persons instead of corp verses corp, and I won’t let you derail this discussion with that falsehood.
1 Like
And thus a solution of rather than nerf the entire npc corp hierarchy (that is what you just said) you are against a player-driven choice.
sigh… not making another post to reply to another topic alteration.
As these are both the same statement in different formats where one is a question and the other is calling me a liar here we go as a full recap.
1: A player corporation gets declared war on (this could be an alliance instead but the rest of the explination I will use the word corporation) and Concord takes a list of all the current members, sets you to war with them for the week, and considers it a closed book case.
2: A player can choose to not participate in the war (attacker or defender) but until the list of people who leave the war is updated (1 week) they remain in the war and can be fought. After the week ends (or if they have any intelligence they leave the day the list is going to update) Concord takes a list of who is leaving the war and gives them back their Concord protection at the cost of not being allowed to return to that corporation for the duration of the war. Concord then takes a list of people joining for both attackers and defenders.
This is one effect. Paid for by the attackers (not discussing how as that would be changing the topic) as they want Concord to not interfere in their fights with said targets. The targets get the flag at the start of the war. Both the attackers and defenders. Switching to NPC is basically throwing up a surrender flag. Unfortunate for us that Eve Online doesn’t have No War Dec systems and as such getting off the battlefield is rather impossible so we just apply “end the current cycle” and you get the effect you wished for. Either you chose to remain in one of the corps in the war, or you chose to leave the corp you were in the war with.
All Player Decisions. All risks accounted for. All benefits gained at costs.
Wrong again. First, let’s start with the NPC corp heirarcy. Which corps are above others. Is the Amarr School of learning above or below the Caldari one?
Next, how is “join a player corp and you get benefits” against player-driven choice? That your choice of where to reside and who to work for have consequences is understood by all in this discussion, and throughout EvE as a whole. So elaborate on your assertion that I’m against choice.
Edit: and after you elaborate on how I’m apparently against choice, you can go ahead and defend yourself against the same allegation for your idea to radically punish players who chose to abandon a failed corp.
I think I have found a way to discourage 1-man corps.
Pretty much, structures owned by your corp whose profits would be linked to the amount of people from your corp operating them.
What if the way CONCORD reacts to your corp was dependent on your diplomatic status toward CONCORD? And what if said diplomatic was dependent on resources and structures you own, in particular one that you could only place into specific points of contention?
This problem is not unique to High-sec. It’s a global EVE problem.
And the answer to this problem is never to accept that the opposing side can’t win.
One of the reasons the design goal of “soft targets” exists, is to provide a way for those who are outmatched to win. The solution is not to protect them from fights they can’t win, the solution is to add more avenues to victories, more points where strategy can be applied to give a chance for those who are outmatched.
Also, I always wondered, purely out of context, why CCP and the game would discourage pilots with low-sec status to be in High-sec.
I’d figure this is precisely the type of people you’d want in High-sec for content…
What if instead of being blown up by police forces, you were just fair game to everyone? That kind of player would like more people engaging them, and those can be perfect “practice” targets to new and other players.