|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
445
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 20:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you want highsec to be the training ground, you have to get players to make friends so they can work together to have fun playing the game and to defeat people who harass them. Training players to drop to an NPC corp or to make their own 1 man corp for optimal profit is detrimental to the game, because you are limiting their play experience and removing them from combat, a major part of the game, almost entirely. You shouldn't allow players to bury their heads into the sandbox, which is what wardec dodging allows players to do.
You will see wardecs, hiring mercenaries, and fighting back become more viable if corporations are willing to shell out some money and have enough players for defense purposes. And of course, if you and your group of players pick a good secluded spot in highsec to live in, you'd probably never have to worry about safety because you can scout out potential hostiles (including gankers!) easily.
There's plenty of ways to stay safe if you are a target, people just don't even try to fight back because they simply don't need to, or because they don't have the human/isk resources that a player group has. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
446
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:This Thread is not Dialogue, that's for sure.
GD has become so ludicrous it's just not worth it. More issue specific forums have much better formed proposals and answers.
Do we even really need GD ? Perhaps it should be only Dev Blog and Announcement oriented with comments allowed.
Sorry, but after 3 years of the same it's just seriously old. REAL old.
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Generally these arguments end with posters like you crying and ISDs rushing to save the thread.
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
450
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 02:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
"If you change it, I'm quitting!!!" is not a valid argument.
Neither is "I"ll never adapt or fight people ever!!! Its too hard!!!".
Put the tissues away. The amount of people who would actually quit over a change would be less than the amount of people we've gained from this month's supercapital brawl. It's all just posturing.
It's really, really not that hard to find a group of people to play with. Perhaps you can get together and gather ~20 (or more!) people to defend yourselves? Or maybe you can hire another group to defend you? You know, use the system to your advantage instead of throwing a temper tantrum because suddenly you are on the same playing field as everyone else. There's so much more of the game people are missing because they simply don't have to worry about it.
Why do players deserve to be immune to the wardec system? Being a new player is quite frankly the only reason. Definitely not because they give CCP $15 a month. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
450
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 03:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: Maybe stop trying to force people to play your way and accept there's more ways to playing the game than yours? There are problems with the NPC corps, sure, but stamping your feet and trying to slap everyone in the face is about as much of a terrible answer as crying about it is. Either suck it up or figure out a method to fix the issues that isn't essentially a thinly veiled insult towards those who don't think like you.
I'm not forcing people to play my way. I want them to play on the same playing field as everyone else does in the game. That's not much to ask. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
451
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
How many suicide tornados does it take to kill a POS? |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
452
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:You're the one with a problem with the current state of things, why should your whims be the ones bowed down to and everyone else have to leave? Hmm? Maybe think about that next time you try to use that as an argument.
Wardecs are widely known to be broken, we are trying to have a discussion about how to fix them. How about you join in by presenting a valid argument?
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
452
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:What if I resupply by simply posting buy orders in station?
Your fanciful idea of wardecing every freighter pilot in the game will get you a world of frustration, before it will starve me of resources.
Please continue to grasp at straws.
It amuses me. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
452
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:EI Digin wrote:Please continue to grasp at straws.
It amuses me. Buying equipment using buy orders is "grasping at straws"?
The man has controlled your game by forcing you to place buy orders instead of shuttling around with your freighter.
GF |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
452
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 07:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: I am merely pointing out that making it too hard to escape a war is providing a too-easily abused tool for grief play. Easily avoidable if you use such tactics as "Hire Some Allies", or "Use A Scout", or the illustrious "Not Be In A One Man Corporation". Perhaps even "Surrender". There are many tools to use in game if you find yourself wardecced. Not logging in for a week (or ever again) is also an option, but in reality it is an emotionally fueled response that is used mainly by forum warriors who have never fought a war in their life and are losing their argument. If you can't handle PvP, why are you playing this game?
By the way, if you find someone willing to camp a one person corporation in for a week straight could you have them contact me? I could use their services. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
453
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I think this is actually more part of the 'problem' that war's cannot be 'won'. There are no objectives. It's wider symptom of the whole mechanic I think. Someone wrote a post somewhere I won't try to paraphrase but it was along the general lines that the deck is stacked for the aggressor too much and that there's a problem that the 'victim' corp can't inflict meaningful pain back. I think it was in the mini-threadnaught about the CSM notes sounding like making decs require mutuality.
Kill them before they kill you. People aren't going to be happy with themselves when they lose their pimped cynabal or a few t3s to a bunch of noobs in drakes or t1 cruisers. The deck isn't stacked. You just have to hit them where it hurts, their killboard. Groups of bad players have always been able to defeat groups of better players. They just have to try.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If defenders had good chances, they'd not drop / evade a wardec.
Defenders don't need to bother with wardecs, they can just drop and evade them all they want. They don't need to worry about fighting them. Which brings me to another point...
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Even assuming an hi sec defendant corp to be proficient at PvP, they probably use all their resources in their core business (else they get out-competed). Therefore if they get a wardec, they will probably have PvP ships somewhat parked out of place, part of the pilots busy / doing other in RL because of "peace time", will probably have cut on first line defenses and so on. A wardec gives little warning enough that the defendant could be not ready to respond to attacks in time. Can't assume every corp to have as main core business continuous PvP, those who don't are less prepared to a timely defense even if they wanted and could defend.
The problem is that wardec evasion is that it has been such a good way to defend yourself from group pvp that people simply never learn how to or don't bother to use any sort of tactic to defend themselves. Why bother going through all of that when you can just drop corp? You can't just take out a major component of the game (combat) because it makes people complacent with the current unbalanced situation they are in and causes them to never experience that major component of the game and to avoid it at all costs. Then they dip their toe into the pool and realize it's not all that bad, making them willing to play the game on an equal playing field with everyone else, and play the game the way it was meant to be played.
There's a reason why there are very few big and effective highsec player groups. It's because there is simply no need for people to join them, or for anyone who knows what they are doing to form one. |
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
453
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:03:00 -
[11] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:EI Digin wrote:The problem is that wardec evasion is that it has been such a good way to defend yourself from group pvp that people simply never learn how to or don't bother to use any sort of tactic to defend themselves. For a long time it was the only effective way - neutral RR, the ever pervading fact that no-one EVER fights fair in EvE and so forth. Did you gamble and undock, or did you just not bother/take other steps - it was a no brainer for years. There was (and still isnt) much to gain by fighting back for many people. Undocking and trying to fight was about as smart as shooting a can flipper. And for the love of god, they CANNOT avoid combat - they can only avoid wardecs. You think that 30 billion paladin would have been saved in an NPC corp? If you play the game by yourself and your head is buried in the sand you will have no cards up your sleeves if you get into a fight.
You know how that Paladin could have avoided combat? He could have not fit 30 billion worth of stuff onto his ship.
Besides, isn't suicide ganking and bumping even worse than wardecs because you have no way to get back at people once they grief you? Doesn't CCP want the game to be policed by players, not NPCs and GMs? Sounds like the best solution is to warn the corp that bad guys are coming for you and let you guys fight about it for a week or so! |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
454
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, the reason why there are very few big and effective high sec players group is because high sec is the place for those whose conditions don't allow to play any useful part in a group.
The guy who gets 1 hour a day to play is going to pick hi sec not to waste that hour with the nitty gritty things that playing in a social structure involve. He's probably going to do 1 mission or mine some ore and log off.
If he could do all what's needed to be of any use to an organized group, he would probably not be in hi sec but in null or a WH. A miner who plays one hour a day is still useful to any corp because he helps to supply minerals to the corp's home station. Or maybe the miner can fly a T1 cruiser and gets involved in a fight to help defend his corp's honour. It doesn't matter how often you log in, how old your character is, or how insignificant your contribution is. Your presence helps out your corporation. Groups like mine have proven this to be true.
Player groups are not monolithic in this game, as much as solo players would like to believe they are. They consist of multiple players all looking to achieve different goals. However, players usually have a shared goal that they are all trying to achieve together as a group, mostly being safe in the space that they live in. If you live in already safe places like highsec there is very little effort required in reaching your common goal, so you are mostly free to do what you like. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
454
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 23:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Your corporation (and to a degree, GS) are an exception not the rule. Most are still well stuck at being either a worthless "casuals industrials compound" ready to crack at the first sneeze OR quite involvement required, "if you are online you are on voice comms" or /kick.
Highsec-only corps are especially fragile if they are wardecced as most competent people will leave because they can choose not to be shot at by being in their own one man corp or an NPC corp. You can't make a good highsec corporation if the game style rewards players if they leave the second things get tough. It would certainly help corporations form and stick together and potentially form alliances if they had a sense of purpose, to kill those who try to kill them or face real consequences.
And of course some player groups would form (or already exist) that don't require 100% commitment, because true leaders take hints on how to run a successful corporation by those who have already succeeded. Tryhard corporations tend to get run into the ground or make enemies with more powerful more player-friendly corporations. You won't see any changes in highsec corp leadership styles as long as there is no point to being in a corporation if you want to live in highsec. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
454
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 02:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Hisec alliances are more likely to be like driftwood rafts: these people happen to be doing kinda the same thing at sort of the same time, so they do it together because it is nice to have people around who share their interests. Good hisec corporations aren't about good leadership, they are about social networking and sharing goals. Hisec is different to nullsec, and that is a basic understanding that you do not have since you are so deeply buried in nullsec life.
Nearly all highsec corporations that aren't alt corps have very niche purposes, like a couple guys getting together to manufacture goods, or to haul freight like RFF. That should not be the case. Players should be able to join a community where they can enjoy the game together, not necessarily as individuals in highsec. It is very difficult to do so and results in a lot of dead corps and complaints of "griefing" because the game promotes people to leave their social groups and abandon their friends or their special project when things get inconvenient. Not saying that backstabbing shouldn't be possible, but you shouldn't push people into making it the default reaction if you are threatened, or to completely avoid making friends like it is now. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
454
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 05:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:The people who know exactly which alliance, and often which corp, they're going to join before they've even download the client get a comparatively charmed and effortless introduction to the game and far more guidance from established players to help them acclimate to the game's treacherous depths. I'm not sure that we (because I'm one of these people) understand exactly how harsh the game is to 'EVE-born' players.
The game is harsh to 'EVE-born' players and we are in fact very lucky to have been a part of organizations that have allowed us to learn how to play the game without much risk involved. But I look at the community that the new player is exposed to first and it is very fragmented, highly unorganized, and generally hostile towards new players. There are very few organizations (basically Eve University and RVB) that are structured, trustable, and willing to help. If there were more open communities out there that would accept new players, you would see them stick around for longer. A tutorial only goes so far, the best way to learn is to have an angry nerd scream at you on comms and a community that welcomes your dumb questions.
Red Frog Rufen wrote:I don't see how carebear have been imposing on anything except on a few logic changes (ie: no insurance on ganking
"Carebears" are imposing their will on players through wardec mechanic evasion either by hiding in a NPC corp or by recycling 1 man corps. If I pay 50-500 mil to declare war on you, you should be a target to me for a week. If you are not, you are imposing your will on me. If you skirt this by being in an unwardeccable corp, you are imposing your will on me by not allowing me to declare war on you. The only people who should be able to avoid wardecs are brand new players. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
454
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 06:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
It's a different story when you have no mechanic available to prevent them from dodging the wardec. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
455
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:No, what does and will happen is that those "open" corporations would be infested by griefers using every possible opportunity to plunder, pillage and burn. Thus we have layers of suspicion: I will recruit you into our quarantine corp. in that corp there are no assets of value apart from other player's ships. Some people can accept this, others find the lack of trust constrictive.
The EVE-born corps are at a disadvantage because they have no way of providing out-of-game consequences for in-game idiocy. There are no out of game consequences if you screw over an out of game community, unless it is extremely tight knit like a WoW guild or something. We're just not awful at managing our players and assets. Everyone has to worry about betrayal, even out of game communities.
Mara Rinn wrote:You still have the wardec against the corp/alliance, which is what you paid for. Wardecs are not about targeting individuals, the' re about buying access to potential targets.
Do you consider "not logging in" to be wardec avoidance?
You were in the corp/alliance when I wardecced it. That should make you a target, even if only for a little while. Kind of like how corps are still shootable as they leave an alliance.
There's a difference between people who never log in during the wardec and people who actively avoid the wardec and continue playing regardless. If a wardecced player logs in a few times in the week and the hostiles never see them while they are targetable, thats OK in anyone's book because the hostiles should have scouted you out better. When the player drops corp and avoids being flashy red and goes about their business they are imposing their will to do whatever they want in spite of clearly planned and well thought out game mechanics. That's wrong. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
455
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
If wardeccing is not a viable gameplay mechanic, then why exactly did they bring it into the game in the first place? Then have the gall to have an entire expansion based on fixing crime flags and wardecs, including adding in a mercenary marketplace to allow an easy way for corps to be aided in a wardec? Someone must be asleep at the wheel, because apparently they are completely unbalanced and would destroy the game as we know it.
The only reason they aren't more popular is because of an oversight that allows people to perpetually evade them, which CCP is afraid to change without community support. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
455
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
The coolest benefit that a highsec corp can offer is immunity from wardecs. Anything else would be risking your isk/hour for nothing. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
458
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:There's a difference between people who never log in during the wardec and people who actively avoid the wardec and continue playing regardless. If a wardecced player logs in a few times in the week and the hostiles never see them while they are targetable, thats OK in anyone's book because the hostiles should have scouted you out better. When the player drops corp and avoids being flashy red and goes about their business they are imposing their will to do whatever they want in spite of clearly planned and well thought out game mechanics. That's wrong. Quoted for the ~can't read~ crew. By the way, if you sit in station updating market orders all day I can still have (non-consensual) market pvp with you.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It's not an oversight. CCP design totally allows mutual wardecs to function perfectly. It also allows an attacker vs willing defendant situation perfectly. What it does not allow is "spawn camping" which some people seem to be so keen of and what has proved year after year and MMO after MMO to be a playerbase destroyer. I know you guys don't give a damn about this, but CCP does. You're right in that CCP's wardec design allows for mutual wardecs to work. But the whole point of the wardec system is to allow for non-consensual combat. CCP cares because there's no rhyme or reason to use the mechanic for its intended purpose in the first place. Wardecs wouldn't be such a hot topic in the CSM minutes if they didn't think something was wrong.
What's more dangerous for the playerbase is having most new players, or players looking for something else to do quit after being thrown into the most fragmented, most hostile, and most unhelpful community and having no real shared goals that any player can work towards or communities players can feel welcome in. Player stagnation is a problem this game has had for years, it's what happens when you promote your largest player bloc to be lazy and antisocial for no good reason.
And seriously, no MMO is like Eve, nearly every single MMO created in the last ten years has died or is dying because they catered towards their (risk averse) playerbase instead of fixing bugs and integrating long-term goals, like meaningful PVP.
Intar Medris wrote:Guess that must be why I have seen griefers run when the Mining/PVE corp they just war decced parks thier Mining/PVE ships, and pull out there PVP ships. Looks like wardecs aren't the game destroyer that people think they are if people manage their risk properly. Why should some people be allowed to skirt the rules? |
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
462
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: I don't think there's any reason why corps that are in a reasonable state should be able to avoid them. There should be rewards for it that those who avoid wardecs can't reap. There should be encouragement to have more than a solo corp. These are things I agree with 100%. When its taken to an individual level that can and WILL be used for griefing though? That's where the line in the sand is drawn and I'm sure that's the reason CCP hasn't done what you guys want.
Individuals (one man corps) have in game methods (that are not wardec evasion) they can use to prevent themselves from being griefed by larger groups. If they choose not to use them and whine about being "griefed" that's their own problem.
Aren Madigan wrote:Also I dare say that your reason for other MMOs failing is not as simplistic or even the majority of the reason that many MMOs have failed. Guess what? Catering to your fans? That doesn't lose you support, that GAINS you support. And if you stop and look at a lot of what a lot of developers say and do before they flop? They aren't catering to anyone half the time, they show that they are strongly out of touch with the playerbase's wants and needs or the design is terrible, they release an unfinished product and it all falls apart. These are the things that kill a game.
Different fans have different priorities, when you cater to people who want to be safe all the time no matter what you are making it more difficult for players who don't mind fighting to play the game they want to play it. Actions have consequences. When you cater to stagnant play you will end up with a stagnant player base. When you cater to shrieking masses like many other MMOs have, your playerbase ends up being unstable and ends up burning out a few months after release because you spent all your time catering to them and not to people looking for long-term endgame play.
Aren Madigan wrote:Now for stagnation? You don't solve stagnation by letting people shoot whatever moves. You do something that keeps the ball rolling. If things are dull in null sec, which I'm not saying if they are or not, I don't feel ready to check myself, then there's something wrong out there. Its not appealing enough, or the system is weighted in a way that things aren't kept moving. If wardecs have a problem, its because there's no carrot. No real rhyme or reason for it. People avoid it because it simply isn't what they want out of the game, or there's nothing worth fighting for. At least nothing that doesn't already have things you have to watch out for, just its a little harder on the aggressors.
When there is a single strategy that you can use to "win" decisively every time, then it is overpowered and demands a nerf. Especially when it becomes the dominant strategy and makes gameplay stagnant. You can give people all the carrots and incentive and tools to fight back that they want, but if they choose to use the single winning strategy over and over again you can't do anything about it. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
464
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 23:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
There's nothing wrong with highsec as a game-type right now. There's plenty of income and the right amount of safety is there. The problem is people don't have to participate in the highsec gametype and instead choose to participate in a super-safe version of it where they basically don't leave the tutorial mode and are able to dodge the major pvp mechanic for people living there. It's not intentional, and there is plainly no good reason for it to exist.
People are naturally min/maxxers, they will gravitate towards what brings them the most amount of money or fun for the least amount of pain. Nullsec is broken because the amount of income or fun an individual player gets is generally not worth being a target to everyone in the game all the time. The natural situation that people end up in (alone in highsec chainrunning missions or mining) results in them perpetuating stagnant gameplay and they become stuck in their situation and will never advance to any different styles of gameplay or achieve any sort of meaningful long-term goal.
The only tactic left that players have against wardec evasion and to solve the problem is to inform the public and CCP exactly why allowing this abuse of mechanics to continue is a bad decision. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
466
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote: stagnant player base?
EO has more subscriber now then 2 years ago.
I've seen 60k online recently, and havn't saw that for a long time!
People love to hear stories on the 'net about how intense the game is. People love to read articles about betrayal and gigantic meaningful battles in magazines and newspapers. That's what makes people sign up to play this game. When's the last time any of that happened because of a mission runner or a mining group in highsec? The butterfly effect we all know and love shouldn't stop because you choose not to play. You could practically replace the involvement of a vast majority highsec players with NPC market orders because they refuse to participate in the greatest part of the game, playing with other people.
Incentivizing players to play by themselves in order to achieve the maximum amount of "fun" promotes stagnant gameplay, just because there are temporarily more subscribers (because of press about a supercap brawl and because of a semi-successful expansion) doesn't mean they won't leave when they realize the game isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Aren Madigan wrote:I've played a lot of games that played loose with things like that and it always becomes about the chosen few groups. Don't kiss their feet? You die, and I know some of the big corps would jump all over that.
This is what this game is all about. You have described this game to a T. But you know what, there's ways you can play the big boys against eachother. Or start your own exclusive club of people who hate the big boys.
Mara Rinn wrote: The way to fix wardecs is to adjust the balance of hi/lo/nul industry. By having more people who need to enter lowsec for their industry, you will have more targets accessible without the pointless effort of wardecing hisec mission runner corps.
You mad isn't a valid argument, sadly. And the fix to wardecs is to move everyone into lowsec, really? |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
466
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 08:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
It doesn't take 2 to 3 weeks to get into a decent corp. |
|
|
|