|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Wardecs need conditons or targets so there can be things to fight over.
this and thrice this.
Basic problem: in HS isk faucets are unlimited, consequently there is no legitimate reason for war and no legitimate reason for war to end.
For every ISK faucet there should be a limitation on that resource to provoke conflict (say the number of missions an agent will offer per day), for every limitation, there should be a war purpose ("Stop using agent X") and every non mutual war should be ended by the aggressor backing down or a treaty being signed ("We agree to not use agent X for 3 months").
People can avoid wars AND resource limitations by joining npc corps, but the rewards should be *much* lower.
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
roboto212 wrote: this is an incorrect assumption the only on unlimited resource in the game are missions. Belts can be mined out, pos's take up space preventing other pos's to be placed there, as well as the number of incursion sights. these are all limited resources so I can and should be fought over . Being in a NPC corporation puts you in an environment in which you can access most of these resources under the full protection of concord.
Its not an assumption, the resources are so abundant compared to demand, that they are defacto unlimited. Seriously have you ever not been able to mine in high sec because someone ate all the roids in the constellation?
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Grikath wrote: The problem is actually not in the mechanism, but in the attitude of the rageposters: they are Entitlementalists. Their "logic" leads them to believe that since they pay to play this game, they are somehow entitled to play it in the way they see fit, regardless of the rock-hard fact that what they are actually paying for is the right to participate in a game according to the rules of the organiser, in this case CCP.
*headdesk*
If CCP didn't agree something was amiss, think that the game couldn't be improved, and wanted input from us lot, this thread wouldn't exist.
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 22:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:As I understand the logic is: before war you must build war command structure - if its destroyed, war is over. Overall, I like this proposal. It gives meaning to wars. It gives actual mechanics for attacking, defending, attacker and defender can loose, you have something to fight for, defender have mean to end war, attacker cant just war dec and not log in on that char for few days (or ever), attacker need to actually be a part of war it started, everybody can win or loose.
It seems a rather obvious solution... but it raises more questions than the article addresses.
- Where does the structure get placed?
- How hard is the structure to kill?
The salient point is that there needs to *some* element of HS war, that doesn't have the ability to logoff or dockup. But the follow on questions - it is survivable enough that it can't be achieved whilst one side is asleep in bed, but is killable enough so that a weak corp actually has the resources to kill it. Thats not so easy when you think about it.
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Grikath wrote:Quote:We have to look at the major complaint here. Rich, old players are allowed to pay-to-grief poor, new players, and the targeted corp has no real recourse. Excuse me? Are you suggesting the Sandbox gets limited for players who through time, dedication and effort have actually accomplished something and are protecting their assets from competition? With the sole "excuse" of inexperience and/or un-willingness to learn of said competition?
I don't think anyone would suggest that - it's the accumulation of ISK, Skill Points, and additional paid for alts that makes is "unfair". A fair competition is one in which people compete on their skills at the game, not how long they've been playing the game for.
A vet player has a much deeper pocket, and far greater military capability than a new player - and its not through skill or effort.
The bottom line is that if eve was *realistic* there would be little motivation for vets to attack the noobs - they have no assets to mention and present no competition for resources. The only reason this happens is because of an out of game mechanic called killboards and a 'because you can' mentality driven from the serious lack of consequences from the in game mechanics. |
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 07:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: - If a younger or smaller corp wants to start a war, then the price should be scaled down accordingly.
Easily abused. c) Bring in more experienced members to actually prosecute the war
thats easily fixed. |
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 09:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
There more I think about it, the more the two objectives of allowing structured unconsensual PVP and providing some kind of respite for newer corps to retain subscribers can't really be achieved without some kind of sandbox breaking mechanic. I think everyone just has to get over that and decide how much they are prepared to sacrifice.
Perhaps this discussion is too narrow in focus in considering how sandboxy tweaks are focussed. My take is that the game should be enjoyable for all play styles, but the risk/reward balance should always be right. If someone wants limited immunity from unconsensual PVP they should sacrifice something significant- so a mechanic banning conflicts in 0.9/1.0 (whilst moving all L4's and maybe L3's and other big isk fountains out) might provide a different kind of approach....
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. KRYSIS.
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
|
betoli
Morior Invictus.
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 03:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:betoli wrote:Cost should include an imbalance factor, something based on ABS (aggressors total SP - defenders total SP) . This would penalise extremely imbalanced wars, which are either done to get killmails off noobs or disrupt the economics of large corps with minimal force projection.
The cheapest war should be an even fight.
No-ones going to pay 70mil a week to fight a 100 man corp. Rule of thumb is that about 10% of the corp will be active during the corps primetime, this of course will be less during a war. So you're looking at 70mil a week for the right to shoot less than 10 people.
Are you replying to me, or just replying - I never mentioned figures.
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 11:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:I like the way so many are ignoring the ability to hire mercenaries to do the fighting for you if PvP isn't your thing. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:....those who pay 72% of the bill. I guess you're referencing population distribution in Eve. I'm fairly sure most people did what I did, created a character which is my main then filled the 2 other slots with characters I barely use or don't use it all. Unsurprisingly these characters are still in the high security station they were born in.
I'm sure no one is that stupid when it comes to generating the stats.
|
|
betoli
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 11:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Amen to that. They want to save their company by messing with those who pay 72% of the bill... which is bold but stupid.
The mantra of "This is a PVP game therefore everyone should face (combat) PVP" isn't really helpful either to players or CCPs revenues. Eve is a sandbox, it should support as wide a range of play-styles as possible in order to get as many people subscribing as possible, even *gasp* completely safe carebear styles.
There are already play styles that are risk free - I can sit in a station and day trade for example. Also many people who are 0.0 based still retain an alt in the relative safety of HS for their ISK generation (clearly a game breaking mechanic).
The ONLY requirement on CCP should be to ensure a balance between risk and reward. If CCP wanted to make regions completely safe this wouldn't break the game, so long as there were no big ISK faucets there. I don't think there is a tweak to fees that makes wardecs both fair and protecting all playstyles.
A better approach should be "if I want to get out of this war, I have to give something up". What that something is and what the fee is is a matter of debate - so long as it nerfs income., in a way thats comparable with the likely outcomes of the war following is natural course. |
betoli
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 20:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:betoli wrote: The ONLY requirement on CCP should be to ensure a balance between risk and reward. If CCP wanted to make regions completely safe this wouldn't break the game, so long as there were no big ISK faucets there.
If there is no risk, you should get no reward.
Right - and as with station trading, there is always some risk - in a war dec-safe environment you can still get ganked, you can still kersplode in a mission if you goof up. Its just a question of finding the balance, and allowing players to make choices between the options. |
betoli
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 20:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:betoli wrote:The mantra of "This is a PVP game therefore everyone should face (combat) PVP" isn't really helpful either to players or CCPs revenues. Eve is a sandbox, it should support as wide a range of play-styles as possible in order to get as many people subscribing as possible, even *gasp* completely safe carebear styles.
There are already play styles that are risk free - I can sit in a station and day trade for example. Also many people who are 0.0 based still retain an alt in the relative safety of HS for their ISK generation (clearly a game breaking mechanic). Most people who say things like "EVE is a PvP game" understand that "Player versus Player" can refer to a host of competitive activities in which players pit themselves against other players, such as station-trading (which, BTW, is not risk-free because you can lose ISK to other players doing it). And while I am no expert on the subject, I have read 0.0 people saying that the reason they use high-sec alts to make ISK is because ISK generation in high-sec is so brokenly lucrative. betoli wrote:The ONLY requirement on CCP should be to ensure a balance between risk and reward. If CCP wanted to make regions completely safe this wouldn't break the game, so long as there were no big ISK faucets there. If there is no risk, you should get no reward. Karl is right ... those station traders and industrialists risk more isk than most of the PVP'ers ever will. Any small group of noobs who are bored on a weekend can set their POS operations back by months or years. So who is taking more risk again? --> this isn't about risk or lack thereof. All we're really talking about is a preference .... not everyone wants to play football ... some like chess. The question is, can we find a set of wardec mechanics that might actually work for both?
Tricky. In the real world a collective approach to protection takes place because supply chains aren't anonymous. If an industrial nation gets war decced, the people who rely on that resource feed step in to preserve the supply chain. In eve the anonymity of the market and the ease of moving goods means you can just find another supplier, there is no game mechanic that penalises the killing of chess players - fees based on corp numbers don't help because corp numbers aren't related to your liking for chess...
Why aren't we using standings to decide how helpful concord are in allowing a war? One would imagine chess players generally have a good sec and faction standings. Isn't this the tool to resolve different players 'style'.
Fee = corp members * ( faction standing * constant + concord standing * constant)
A good standing makes it expensive to dec you etc etc, pirates can be decced for free(ish). |
betoli
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:51:00 -
[14] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: My suggestion is a bit different.
No longer base the wardec system off of whether you're in a player corp anymore.
Instead, make it based off of what you put into Eve. I'll explain
You can no longer use research or production lines without being in a player corp. If you are using research, development, have a POS up, or own SOV, then your corp is wardeccable.
This does a few things.
1) keeps players from taking advantage of npc corps in order to do R&D to fund low/null sec.
2) Anyone who supplies any type of competition to Eve via a POS, SOV, or R&D will be proclaiming that they wish to compete in Eve.
3) Casual corps that don't wish to be involved in wardecs can do so, but at the cost of being able to own a POS, SOv, or do R&D.
While you may think this is weird, I feel that it is well balanced. Players will be able to form small corps with friends without having to worry about dec, while those that are performing these actions are essentially competeing and can be shut down.
[snip]
My other thought was to set freighters as a support ship that can't be used outside of a player created corp. You must be part of a player corp in order to pilot a freighter. This means that npc corp transporters for those competing in these types of pvp will have to either do so in transport and indy ships, or must create a player corp with no ties to the alliance in order to do so.
I like this - it follows the risk/reward mantra. In order to be a war target a player (or his corp) should be putting something out there. A pos is a fine example, building a pos enables rewards, and it also becomes a legitimate target, and it plays into the scarcity paradigm thats quite frankly missing in HS.
There's still a hole with missions and incursions, in that those levels of reward shouldn't be available to people who aren't vulnerable to a dec. But there are ways of fixing that too if the will was there.
|
|
|
|