Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:04:21 -
[1] - Quote
TL/DR: Make the aggressors in highsec wars go suspect when they shoot the defenders to allow people to third-party wars on behalf of the defenders.
Right now, highsec wardec mechanics are bad. The vast majority of highsec "wars" consist of one powerful group of players repeatedly thrashing a weaker (often new) group of players. As a new player, it's a miserable experience, and as an older player, even if you want to help, there is literally nothing you can do. Avoiding the term "griefing" is difficult to do, but since there's a mechanic designed specifically to allow players to do this, it's hard to say it's a violation of the EULA.
On the other hand, highsec wardecs are necessary. First, this is EVE, and restricting away part of the risk vs. reward gameplay is generally not good. Also, structures in highsec would be absolutely secure, and moons would get locked down forever even if the player no longer plays the game.
A way to deal with the former problem, while not creating the later would be to increase the risk of highsec wars. An easy way to do this would be to give the aggressors in a war a suspect timer every time they shoot the defenders, but not vice versa. CONCORD doesn't get involved, and their sec status does not go down, but if a random person, corp or alliance wants to help the defenders, they can do so without merging into the same alliance. It would add content, and give new players a fighting chance against a wardec, especially if they participate in the best aspect of EVE, the social aspect, and ask for help. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4963
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:13:11 -
[2] - Quote
aren't there already ally mechanics to let people help defenders? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3716
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:22:15 -
[3] - Quote
War mechanics are just fine.
The problem with wars lies in two places. 1. Too many high sec stations. You could remove 9 out of 10 stations in highsec and every 3rd or so system would still have a station on average. Most systems have several. This means there is no point forming a group in order to maintain a citadel or the like. Therefore nothing to cause the creation of significant highsec only groups other than the wardec agencies.
2. The pre-nerfed state of highsec structures. Which come with both weaker defences & weaker stats than the identical structure in null. Which again means there is a lot less draw to create a significant sized group in highsec.
Solve those two issues, and you will see the creation of more significant corps in highsec that can actually effectively fight back.
P.S. The Ally mechanics are more used by the attackers to exploit isk out of the defenders either way via alt corps. So no, the ally mechanics are in the usual EVE way, poor due to how easy it is to scam with them. |
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:35:29 -
[4] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:aren't there already ally mechanics to let people help defenders?
The issue with the current system is that it's difficult to use and unintuitive. If I'm warping from system to system in some PvP cruiser that I just fit up in Jita, I'm not going to dig through menus to help some random person getting attacked on a gate. If I see a couple people on a gate who are flashy yellow, I might think that is the perfect time to try out my new ship, and a boring, certain gank suddenly turns into a interesting fight with an uncertain outcome. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
10893
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:49:27 -
[5] - Quote
James Zimmer wrote:Danika Princip wrote:aren't there already ally mechanics to let people help defenders? The issue with the current system is that it's difficult to use and unintuitive. If I'm warping from system to system in some PvP cruiser that I just fit up in Jita, I'm not going to dig through menus to help some random person getting attacked on a gate. If I see a couple people on a gate who are flashy yellow, I might think that is the perfect time to try out my new ship, and a boring, certain gank suddenly turns into a interesting fight with an uncertain outcome. So basically, you want instant allies (or to be an instant ally) on an as-needed basis with no commitment?
Yeah... no. If you want an ally (or be an ally), commit to the overall conflict.
Defenders have more than a few advantages... both in the war system (ally mechanic) and in the overall ship mechanics (a few cheapo Griffins can turn the tide in a battle... even against "advanced ships"... it simply requires organization).
Making the aggressors turn go "Suspect Status" every time they engage their opponent strikes me as be unnecessarily punitive.
How did you Veterans start?
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19164
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 19:53:29 -
[6] - Quote
This is ridiculous
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19164
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 20:03:12 -
[7] - Quote
On a side note, I'm getting pretty tired of null boyos telling me how my gameplay should be.
Had I told you how cynos and cap mechanics should be to suit my inclinations I'd be told to **** off .
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3603
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 21:24:22 -
[8] - Quote
Confirming this is ridiculous.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Onkel Fysen
Celestial Tranquility Catastrophic Experiment
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 22:00:29 -
[9] - Quote
I tend to agree a bit with James here. Many corps start hundreds of wars to to make trade stations their ganking space, so it seems like the original intent of the game mechanic is kind of exploited by some. Maybe there could be a limit to how many wardec's an alliance/corp could start or ally with at the same time?
Celestial Tranquility is a battle-oriented corp operating in high/low-sec. We want active players for PVE/PVP.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3604
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 23:06:33 -
[10] - Quote
Onkel Fysen wrote:I tend to agree a bit with James here. Many corps start hundreds of wars to to make trade stations their ganking space, so it seems like the original intent of the game mechanic is kind of exploited by some. Maybe there could be a limit to how many wardec's an alliance/corp could start or ally with at the same time?
Exploited?
Turning high sec into 'gank space' is in fact the original intent of wardecs. In the same way you consent to pvp when you undock, you consent to wardecs when you join a corp.
Your proposal is easily worked around I'm afraid. Limit the number of decs i can run? I'll just make several corps and swap between them depending on who im hunting that day.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19166
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 23:15:10 -
[11] - Quote
Onkel Fysen wrote:I tend to agree a bit with James here. Many corps start hundreds of wars to to make trade stations their ganking space, so it seems like the original intent of the game mechanic is kind of exploited by some. Maybe there could be a limit to how many wardec's an alliance/corp could start or ally with at the same time? mass wars are a symptom of a problem here are some of the extensive conversations we have had on the topic recently http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=479121&find=unread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6630762 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=498635&find=unread
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.20 23:44:06 -
[12] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Confirming this is ridiculous.
How so? |
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 00:30:05 -
[13] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Thanks for the links. It does give me some more perspective on highsec wardecs. However, I don't think it invalidates my proposal in any way
The CZ suggestion is complicated and still incentivizes attacking any newbie corp that decides to put up a small reprocessing tower somewhere, because they're a valid target and still can't retaliate and bash the war room citadel (or whatever it ends up being), because they just don't have the firepower. Players will just organize differently to exploit the mechanics, like dividing into a lot of smaller corps that all individually attack the defender.
All the stuff on locator agents and the like are valid. Giving people suspect timers and giving mercs better intel tools to work with are not mutually exclusive. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3604
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 01:01:04 -
[14] - Quote
James Zimmer wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Confirming this is ridiculous. How so?
How do you see small time players and noobs using a wardec when they go suspect everytime they want to act on it?
Do you even fully understand suspect mechanics? For example a fleet of ten goes suspect attacking a wartarget. Another fleet of ten, who just happen to be near, target the aggressors. This second fleet attacks ONE of the aggressors at a time (you know, calling primary) that ONE guy is the only one who can shoot back at the new fleet without being concorded. The rest have to either shoot the war target or wait their turn to shoot the interrupting fleet.
This is wholly unacceptable. Suspect is entirely unsuitable for wardecs, massively discourages newer players from getting involved and further encourages wardeccers to fly around in a blob with a big **** off logi wing.
Not a snowballs hope in hell have you got.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
51
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 01:57:55 -
[15] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:James Zimmer wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Confirming this is ridiculous. How so? How do you see small time players and noobs using a wardec when they go suspect everytime they want to act on it? Do you even fully understand suspect mechanics? For example a fleet of ten goes suspect attacking a wartarget. Another fleet of ten, who just happen to be near, target the aggressors. This second fleet attacks ONE of the aggressors at a time (you know, calling primary) that ONE guy is the only one who can shoot back at the new fleet without being concorded. The rest have to either shoot the war target or wait their turn to shoot the interrupting fleet. This is wholly unacceptable. Suspect is entirely unsuitable for wardecs, massively discourages newer players from getting involved and further encourages wardeccers to fly around in a blob with a big **** off logi wing. Not a snowballs hope in hell have you got.
Good point. That is not at all what I had in mind, but it is what would happen. The idea needs refinement. How about this: A wardec suspect timer is a special kind of suspect timer. It flashes a different color, and if you shoot the person, you get a limited engagement timer with the person's corp and alliance. If someone provides remote assistance to you, they also get a limited engagement timer too. Would that solve the problem? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3716
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 02:09:19 -
[16] - Quote
James Zimmer wrote:
Good point. That is not at all what I had in mind, but it is what would happen. The idea needs refinement. How about this: A wardec suspect timer is a special kind of suspect timer. It flashes a different color, and if you shoot the person, you get a limited engagement timer with the person's corp and alliance. If someone provides remote assistance to you, they also get a limited engagement timer too. Would that solve the problem?
So you want to fix a non existent problem by bringing back the old convoluted web of aggression timers. See my post above, the War mechanics are not the issue, the issue is the lack of viable drivers (& rewards) for making a highsec corp other than to wardec others with. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3605
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 02:39:31 -
[17] - Quote
If this was implemented (i doubt it) the only way to make it work is if shooting someone who is suspect because of a wardec also makes you suspect.
This would also allow allies to be joined on both sides (provided the defenders initiate allies first).
Oooor we could just use the ally system and then wars can occur with due notice and don't have complicated mechanics.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
854
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 04:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:On a side note, I'm getting pretty tired of null boyos telling me how my gameplay should be.
Had I told you how cynos and cap mechanics should be to suit my inclinations I'd be told to **** off .
Cool yo jets Ralph- I think even the nullboys agree with you on this one ;-) |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45860
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 05:17:14 -
[19] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:On a side note, I'm getting pretty tired of null boyos telling me how my gameplay should be.
Had I told you how cynos and cap mechanics should be to suit my inclinations I'd be told to **** off .
Cool yo jets Ralph- I think even the nullboys agree with you on this one ;-) Confirming I agree.
I have no real good ideas for how to change the mechanics because I don't have huge experience using them, but the last thing we need is to make a style of play less viable because we don't like it.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Skittles Turisas
Hellsing Arms Weapon Industrials
20
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 14:06:45 -
[20] - Quote
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day, a war is between 2 parties + the possible allies either side.
Not between 1 party and the entire of EVE. |
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
368
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 16:21:51 -
[21] - Quote
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2339
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 17:32:38 -
[22] - Quote
Agondray wrote:You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.
That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.
As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19201
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 18:05:45 -
[23] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Agondray wrote:You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games. That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted. As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part. command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2339
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 18:13:55 -
[24] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Agondray wrote:You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games. That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted. As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part. command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him
Yeah but that particular can opener is illegal in HS.
I deeply believe that repping through and aggression timer (local or remote) shouldn't be a thing in eve. I would prefer that if you commit an aggression in a docking ring or within jump range of a gate - you have to leave grid and then return before you can dock/jump. I think that would add a delicious level of commitment to a lot of engagements. It would be the shipbuilding stimulus that would make New Eden great again. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
13155
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 19:05:08 -
[25] - Quote
James Zimmer wrote:Avoiding the term "griefing" is difficult to do, but since there's a mechanic designed specifically to allow players to do this, it's hard to say it's a violation of the EULA.
It's not hard, it's super easy to say - categorically - "It's not a violation"
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19201
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 19:39:13 -
[26] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Agondray wrote:You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games. That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted. As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part. command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him Yeah but that particular can opener is illegal in HS. I deeply believe that repping through and aggression timer (local or remote) shouldn't be a thing in eve. I would prefer that if you commit an aggression in a docking ring or within jump range of a gate - you have to leave grid and then return before you can dock/jump. I think that would add a delicious level of commitment to a lot of engagements. It would be the shipbuilding stimulus that would make New Eden great again. I agree to a point, station games can **** right off as far as I'm concerned. I do think using gates to split up bigger gangs is fine though, it's not difficult to counter someone deagressing to GTFO, just have the tackle pull off and jump ahead.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
96
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 20:14:22 -
[27] - Quote
If you want to fix blanket wars you need to give the wardec alliances something to help compensate for the loss of watchlists. It's really that simple. Wardecs are just a way to get content, like anything else people do in this game, from gate camping, to rage rolling, poking pocos, baiting, or just yoloing through heavily populated systems. Wardec alliances have to spam wars now because there's really no way of knowing when players are online anymore, making pipe and trade hub camping with blanket decs their only viable choice. You could overhaul dec costs or implement cooldowns etc, but you've got to give them a reason and a method to get out into space to hunt players down. Other proposals, like the OPs, will just kill highsec war alliances and snuff out another variety of gameplay. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3720
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 20:21:16 -
[28] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:If you want to fix blanket wars you need to give the wardec alliances something to help compensate for the loss of watchlists. It's really that simple. Wardecs are just a way to get content, like anything else people do in this game, from gate camping, to rage rolling, poking pocos, baiting, or just yoloing through heavily populated systems. Wardec alliances have to spam wars now because there's really no way of knowing when players are online anymore, making pipe and trade hub camping with blanket decs their only viable choice. You could overhaul dec costs or implement cooldowns etc, but you've got to give them a reason and a method to get out into space to hunt players down. Other proposals, like the OPs, will just kill highsec war alliances and snuff out another variety of gameplay. Rubbish. The Wardec alliances were doing spam wars before watchlists got removed. The removal barely affected the trade hub campers. It's the small merc alliances that got affected. Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping.
Though I do agree that locator agents should give you online/offline status so there is some way of doing it.
But making high sec corps more meaningful starts to create a lot more reason to hunt players to begin with since those players have a geographic location and more consistent operations. People are trying to solve this with a stick, not a carrot when a carrot is what is needed. CCP need to stop the nerfing of high sec structures, if they are vulnerable to a wardec give them the same stats in all areas of space, then strip stations from highsec to create a lot more need for your own structure. At that point you will see significant high sec corps operating in small areas from their own structures, which then give you wardec targets in space. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2692
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 21:25:09 -
[29] - Quote
James Zimmer wrote:TL/DR: Make the aggressors in highsec wars go suspect when they shoot the defenders to allow people to third-party wars on behalf of the defenders.
They're not doing anything illegal. In fact, they're doing something that CONCORD has explicitly sanctioned. Why would that cause them to go suspect?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5532
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 21:45:41 -
[30] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Rubbish. The Wardec alliances were doing spam wars before watchlists got removed. The removal barely affected the trade hub campers. It's the small merc alliances that got affected. Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping.
The claim was not that removal of the watchlist is what caused wardec spamming, but that it is not about the only viable strategy. Hence the increase in its prevalence.
You are arguing against a strawman.
Frankly, I don't know why people are so upset with this. If you get decced stay out of the trade hubs and off the trade lanes and you can very easily minimize your risk of having to fight during a war dec to near zero.
Stop the whining...those who don't want PvP actually got what they wanted.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |