| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
230
   |
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:31:00 -
[61] - Quote
I blame killboards.
If a corp that is wardecced fights back and fails, they will be wardecced by a dozen corps more.
Better to stay docked and keep your killboard clean.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
Persona Non Gratis
392
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:34:00 -
[62] - Quote
Thomas Gore wrote:I blame killboards.
If a corp that is wardecced fights back and fails, they will be wardecced by a dozen corps more.
Better to stay docked and keep your killboard clean.
And if they don't fight back they'll never learn how to fight and win.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos
Whores in space
90
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:41:00 -
[63] - Quote
war dec system is fine.
hey ccp moron if you want consensual pvp go play one of the dozen pve mmo's where you can duel all you want. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
Persona Non Gratis
392
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:46:00 -
[64] - Quote
Lilan Kahn wrote:war dec system is fine.
hey ccp moron if you want consensual pvp go play one of the dozen pve mmo's where you can duel all you want.
I beseech thee, stop helping. Please.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
175
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 13:58:00 -
[65] - Quote
@Andreus Ixiris. Much more eloquent version of what I was attempting to say  |
luZk
x13
Whores in space
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:00:00 -
[66] - Quote
Worst EVE idea of 2013.
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
Oh jeez, maybe have an incentive for planting and defending a flag, and then people will actually bother fighting back when wardecced.
It's saddening to see CCP going backwards. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:08:00 -
[68] - Quote
OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.
I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
1616
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:13:00 -
[69] - Quote
People, let me be clear. CCP are not seriously suggesting removing wardecs or aggression from hi-sec.
They are not doing this.
They are not doing this at all.
They say so in the same minutes you guys are quoting.
Mane 614
|
Singular Snowflake
New Order Logistics
CODE.
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:16:00 -
[70] - Quote
bongsmoke wrote:OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.
I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact.
Sir, looking at the thread it seems clear that the idea of hellokitty-wardecs is widely rejected as a horrible idea.
I, personally, do not use the wardec system to attack anyone. I am just extremely concerned about the big picture of high-sec and the changes towards making Eve just another themepark MMO. |
anthie
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:17:00 -
[71] - Quote
Why............... just why would we want another EQ clone ?
Not talking WoW here since EQ was the first true themepark based MMO, and now you wan't to bring the same sort of "duel" concept to Eve , jesus christ, that is something i can't and will never accept
There is a point in War deccing other corps, some corps rely on Merc corps to do their dirty business , its all apart of Eve and now you wanna change that and basicly remove not only 1 aspect about the game but several...........
If that would ever be the case i'd cancel every single account i own. |
Wescro
Urban Mining Corp
Rising Phoenix Alliance
152
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:20:00 -
[72] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:People, let me be clear. CCP are not seriously suggesting removing wardecs or aggression from hi-sec.
They are not doing this.
They are not doing this at all.
They say so in the same minutes you guys are quoting.
An idea this obnoxiously bad has to be nipped in the bud. Its like a cancer, you have to detect and remove it early before it reaches stage 4 and metastasis all over CCP and EVE. Kill that bad idea right here right now.
This thread is awful and it should be locked. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:40:00 -
[73] - Quote
Singular Snowflake wrote:bongsmoke wrote:OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.
I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact. Sir, looking at the thread it seems clear that the idea of hellokitty-wardecs is widely rejected as a horrible idea. I, personally, do not use the wardec system to attack anyone. I am just extremely concerned about the big picture of high-sec and the changes towards making Eve just another themepark MMO.
If you think 4 pages of peeps here is the full EvE consensus, your sadly mistaken.
If you don't use the wardec system, wtf are you complaining about?
Hi-sec has and will always be.
When they take out ganking, you might have an argument. Otherwise, nothing new here except mechanic changes that people need to adapt or send me your stuff when you GTFO.
You want non-consensual pvp, plenty out there, don't be lazy. Go to low/null sec. Gank a mission runner. Don't feed me the BS of wardec mechanics being the knife that killed EvE. |
Singular Snowflake
New Order Logistics
CODE.
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:59:00 -
[74] - Quote
anthie wrote:Why............... just why would we want another EQ clone ?
Not talking WoW here since EQ was the first true themepark based MMO, and now you wan't to bring the same sort of "duel" concept to Eve , jesus christ, that is something i can't and will never accept
There is a point in War deccing other corps, some corps rely on Merc corps to do their dirty business , its all apart of Eve and now you wanna change that and basicly remove not only 1 aspect about the game but several...........
If that would ever be the case i'd cancel every single account i own.
Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen! |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
1617
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
Singular Snowflake wrote:Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen!
Except there's no danger of these changes being implemented anyway, since CCP does not approve of them and is not interested in making them.
Mane 614
|
Singular Snowflake
New Order Logistics
CODE.
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:22:00 -
[76] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Singular Snowflake wrote:Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen! Except there's no danger of these changes being implemented anyway, since CCP does not approve of them and is not interested in making them.
We can never be too careful. There were at least 3 CSM members and 1 CCP devs who were clearly for this kind of change. If you are interested in a more detailed analysis, check http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/01/good-csm-bad-csm.html |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
507
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:00:00 -
[77] - Quote
I've seen a bunch of good discussion pop up on this thread while I was asleep, but I've noticed an argument made once or twice that I really feel needs to be addressed directly.
A couple people have made a variation on the statement that it's okay to further limit or even eliminate wardecs because suicide ganking or some other form of gameplay interference would still exist. The belligerent undesirables in this game are already overburdened. In the view of those making these arguements, at what point is it no longer okay to take away methods to effect others gameplay? Are you really suggesting that it's okay to take away all the other tools in an undesirables toolbox as long as he still has a 3/8ths crescent wrench?
We're already at such a state that one of the most effective methods that exist to effect someone else's gameplay right now is to bump them. We're down to bumping! And people are suggesting that we take away even more mechanics? I love the New Order and the work they're doing. It's a sorry state of affairs that such incredible human beings don't have a better tool for the job they're doing then bumping.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |
Cannibal Kane
Chosen of New Eden
1246
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:14:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:
It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.
Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!
Really?
He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no.
I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.
I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.
"I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Singular Snowflake
New Order Logistics
CODE.
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:
It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.
Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8! Really? He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no. I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it. I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.
James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen. |
Cannibal Kane
Chosen of New Eden
1246
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:32:00 -
[80] - Quote
Singular Snowflake wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:
It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.
Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8! Really? He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no. I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it. I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO. James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen.
Since I am always right... you are wrong. My hair gives me powers some can never understand since washing it daily is a chore as it requires the blood of my victims.
So yeah.
Say no to a Safe Highsec!
"I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
678
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.
Sorry :)
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
207
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:22:00 -
[82] - Quote
Lots of posts while I was sleeping. 
Anyways, one of the problem assumptions that I keep seeing in this thread is that large corps/alliances are preying on tiny groups of 5 hapless miners who green behind the ears. I won't deny that this probably does happen, but many of the posters in this thread seem to think this is how every dec is. Frankly, it is far more common for small PVP corps to dec larger corps or alliances (many of them PVE/mining etc) because small groups don't provide enough targets for the ISK. Everyone here seems to think that bigger necessarily means better, when it is quite demonstrably not the case, up to a certain threshold. This is why so many people like HS PVP - they can engage in an area of engagement sizes in which player skill matters more than player numbers. More importantly, there aren't that many large PVP groups left in HS.
Another assumption was made that when griefer/dec corps get dec'd by mercs (or allied against), they immediately close shop and dock up. Sure, this happens in some cases, but frankly this doesn't happen nearly as much as was implied. Often the griefers will fight the mercs, and in many cases, are better than many of the groups that call themselves mercs (even several of the listed ones).
I also wanted to note the fact that a very large number of my decs that ended without a kill (which in total number less than 50) ended in no kills because the defender surrendered. Dec'ing people for ransom is a not-uncommon tactic and should be allowed. Those that pay (often) get off the hook and no one died. I know that many of the groups that paid ransom after we nearly destroyed their corps/alliances expressed the sentiment that they wished they had paid up front and not lost so much ISK to us.
One last major point I wanted to make regards POSes. Who here actually thinks people would agree to mutual wars if they have a POS? Without non-consensual decs, there is no way to remove these and no way to disrupt the industrial supply chain that occurs via POSes. Do you really want highsec to be full of perma-safe POSes researching BPOs with no way to interfere other than corp infiltration? |
Zilero
The Littlest Hobos
Whores in space
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:31:00 -
[83] - Quote
It just proves what I was thinking all along: That CCP do not play their own game.
Good riddance.
|
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:42:00 -
[84] - Quote
Another section of the CSM minutes talked about interactions as a customer, player, and character.
To the majority of highsec corps, a wardec is a customer level interaction. Instead of playing EVE tonight, I will play something else. Saying you'll stop playing if wardecs are removed/changed is not as big a threat as the people who already do give up because of wardecs.
In their current form, wardecs offer no meaningful interaction for the average player.
DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance! |
Cherry Comfort
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:55:00 -
[85] - Quote
I'm not sure how I even feel about this idea, but I'll toss this out for discussion - stolen from a blog posting by Greedy Goblin.
His blog points out that highsec non-pvp'ers have two options - be totally safe in NPC corps (but miss out on social interaction), or join a corp/alliance and get social interaction, but be under the threat of wardec.
He proposes a middle ground option - a corp or alliance setting that requires wars to be mutual - so you can't be in a war unless you agree to it. In exchange for that safety, there would be reductions in what the corp/alliance can do (i.e., no POS's), and Concord would demand a high fee - perhaps 100 million isk/month, and a tax like the NPC corps have.
Again - not my idea, and not sure how beneficial or detrimental this would be to the game, or how this could then be abused - just throwing it out for discussion. |
Wescro
Urban Mining Corp
Rising Phoenix Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:06:00 -
[86] - Quote
If CCP does go down the rabbit hole, I suggest renaming the mechanic. A "declaration" of war is not a mutual thing. Almost all declarations historically have been unilaterally adopted. The 13 colonies didn't mutually ask King George III to accept their independence, they declaredtheir independence to him whether he liked it or not! Maybe call it a War Agreement, which is hilariously absurd, since war often stems from disagreement.
This thread is awful and it should be locked. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
333
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:09:00 -
[87] - Quote
If you're not willing to fight for what you have in EvE Online, you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.
If CCP ever change this core design guideline, they will effectively kill EvE Online.
If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
|
CCP Solomon
C C P
C C P Alliance
189
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:03:00 -
[88] - Quote
Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.
Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.
Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).
I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.
Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.
I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.
Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.
I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.
-Solomon
CCP Solomon | Technical Producer | EVE Online
@RoryAbbott |
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
687
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:04:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Solomon wrote:Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).
Thanks a lot for that
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
578
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:38:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Solomon wrote:...
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.
...
I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.
Are there any plans or at least ideas to address the number of currently easy opt outs of the wardec system (corp hopping/NPC corps/etc)? Are they still in existence in it's current form out of consideration for those aforementioned customers who would rather not participate in wardecs? Should that be acceptable to just opt out like that and should CCP place such great consideration on those who resist what most perceive to be the nature of the game? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |