| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wrath Of Titans
Dark Eternity.
2
   |
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:26:11 -
[1] - Quote
it's a simple idea
As CCP recently stated *Null Sec Is Stagnant*
As long as groups like PIRAT and Marmite and Break A Wish can declare hundreds of wars. There will be no change to null.
Set the war deck limit to 5 wars per any corp/alliance. Set the limit of a corporation/alliance being war decked i.e the corp/alliance can only be war decked 5 times at anyone time.
And watch players slam back into null for pvp and out of empire
CCP, you have turned high sec, into the most dangerous area ingame.
Null sec has become stagnant and a blue ball
Low sec is pretty much dead except for a few set systems in certain areas
WH space is just a slap dash pvp area
Privateers did this, and where slammed, but marmite are not, nor are PIRAT or break a wish, csm METHINKS
CCP do summit about this, it's not even funny anymore.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3101
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:32:15 -
[2] - Quote
...What?
Highsec wardecs and nullsec conflict are not connected in any way. They're completely different playstyles.
Go compare the total membership of those highsec guys you named with any null bloc, and explain how they're going to somehow change anything at all. |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
The Periphery
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:35:23 -
[3] - Quote
The difference is the Privateers were good at it. Limiting war decs to 5 per corp/alliance just means that everyone would war dec their own corp 5 times and be immune to war decs from everyone else and that is bad. |
Velicitia
Arma Artificer
2657
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:35:54 -
[4] - Quote
Don't think that the problem is so much Marmites (et. al.) being able to dec as much as they can afford ... but rather that somewhere along the way, we lost sight of "nowhere in EvE is (or should be) safe".
So that leads players to becoming complacent, and yield fitting (which is horrible) ... and then you start getting groups like "anti-[whatever]" who sit around and talk about "well, if we were only good enough to fight Marmites ... but they're so big and ... wouldn't it be great if someday someone could do something about them " instead of looking at what they can actively do as a group of 100 ppl ...
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
738
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:41:04 -
[5] - Quote
Maybe rework the war dec mechanics. The last overhaul is kind of 'un fun'. There are a few corps that offer to auto join either side of any war dec in progress. It's kind of made the whole war dec thing dumb. It also just promotes risk averse gank jockeys sitting on trade hubs w/ active decs on 100 groups.
You're not promoting pvp, you're promoting ganks by alliances full of gank alts sitting on trade hubs in boosted alpha gangs. If you can show me where this is interesting or fun for anyone, please do tell... I'm all ears.
My solution: Roll back to the good old days where it cost a small amount for a small group to dec someone and a large amount for a large group to dec someone.
I think the game kind of bent over for the big boys a few expansions back and now we have 3 (or so) big alliances of alts sitting on trade hubs. Large alliances are free from small lean groups messing w/ them and trade hubs are being monopolized by mege war dec assist alliances.
Opinion: Once again, bowing to the whines/desires of the big boys has sucked yet another bit of fun out of the game.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1024
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 16:50:05 -
[6] - Quote
Wardec mechanics most definitely need to be looked into, but setting arbitrary hard limits on how many a corp can be involved in at once is not the change necessary. With a limit of N active wardecs, a corp could just roll N alts in N 1-man corps, have them all mutually perma-dec the main corp, and suddenly the main corp is immune to all "real" wardecs.
Sorry, but no.
Serendipity Lost wrote:My solution: Roll back to the good old days where it cost a small amount for a small group to dec someone and a large amount for a large group to dec someone.
So. Much. This.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 17:33:18 -
[7] - Quote
Lol good luck restricting quantity of war-decs.
|
Wrath Of Titans
Dark Eternity.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 18:58:07 -
[8] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Wardec mechanics most definitely need to be looked into, but setting arbitrary hard limits on how many a corp can be involved in at once is not the change necessary. With a limit of N active wardecs, a corp could just roll N alts in N 1-man corps, have them all mutually perma-dec the main corp, and suddenly the main corp is immune to all "real" wardecs. Sorry, but no. Serendipity Lost wrote:My solution: Roll back to the good old days where it cost a small amount for a small group to dec someone and a large amount for a large group to dec someone. So. Much. This.
Then maybe the cost of ar decks should be
Corp Vs Corp 500mil a week
Alliance Vs Alliance 1 billion a Week
At least then, if ur gonna deck a co0rp, u better have a surplus of money to do it |
Wrath Of Titans
Dark Eternity.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 18:59:42 -
[9] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:...What?
Highsec wardecs and nullsec conflict are not connected in any way. They're completely different playstyles.
Go compare the total membership of those highsec guys you named with any null bloc, and explain how they're going to somehow change anything at all.
Null sec is a stagnant blue ball with all you alts smacking everyone around in empire, not to mention 3/4 of goonswarm *numbers* as you put are alts and not actual players.
We need to get ur alts back into null n start null being the war ground it should be
But then u destroyed the one alliance that made that happen didn't you, thru underhanded trickery |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
738
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:15:32 -
[10] - Quote
Wrath Of Titans wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Wardec mechanics most definitely need to be looked into, but setting arbitrary hard limits on how many a corp can be involved in at once is not the change necessary. With a limit of N active wardecs, a corp could just roll N alts in N 1-man corps, have them all mutually perma-dec the main corp, and suddenly the main corp is immune to all "real" wardecs. Sorry, but no. Serendipity Lost wrote:My solution: Roll back to the good old days where it cost a small amount for a small group to dec someone and a large amount for a large group to dec someone. So. Much. This. Then maybe the cost of ar decks should be Corp Vs Corp 500mil a week Alliance Vs Alliance 1 billion a Week At least then, if ur gonna deck a co0rp, u better have a surplus of money to do it
I'm not too interested in the particulars - it's the concept. A 10 man corp needing 100s of mil isk to deck a large alliance and a large alliance needing pennies to dec a small corp just takes 'bully wins' to a new level. Someone lobbied to scale the costs backwards and won - it's time to right that wrong.
Hard limits on the number of decs is a poor approach. Make the number too small and folks will just alt corp dec themselves into immunity. Make it too large and it's purpose becomes moot.
Making the price high for large corps and low for small corps is a pretty easy fix if you get rid of the dec assist mechanic. Although, if you put a hard limit of 3 assists, that would get rid of a lot of the garbage that goes on now. (specifically - you can only assist 3 other defenders at a given time). |
Wrath Of Titans
Dark Eternity.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:19:09 -
[11] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Wrath Of Titans wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Wardec mechanics most definitely need to be looked into, but setting arbitrary hard limits on how many a corp can be involved in at once is not the change necessary. With a limit of N active wardecs, a corp could just roll N alts in N 1-man corps, have them all mutually perma-dec the main corp, and suddenly the main corp is immune to all "real" wardecs. Sorry, but no. Serendipity Lost wrote:My solution: Roll back to the good old days where it cost a small amount for a small group to dec someone and a large amount for a large group to dec someone. So. Much. This. Then maybe the cost of ar decks should be Corp Vs Corp 500mil a week Alliance Vs Alliance 1 billion a Week At least then, if ur gonna deck a co0rp, u better have a surplus of money to do it I'm not too interested in the particulars - it's the concept. A 10 man corp needing 100s of mil isk to deck a large alliance and a large alliance needing pennies to dec a small corp just takes 'bully wins' to a new level. Someone lobbied to scale the costs backwards and won - it's time to right that wrong. Hard limits on the number of decs is a poor approach. Make the number too small and folks will just alt corp dec themselves into immunity. Make it too large and it's purpose becomes moot. Making the price high for large corps and low for small corps is a pretty easy fix if you get rid of the dec assist mechanic. Although, if you put a hard limit of 3 assists, that would get rid of a lot of the garbage that goes on now. (specifically - you can only assist 3 other defenders at a given time).
The issue is the simple fact that new players come in groups, they band together, create a corp to play as a team to learn the game together
along comes a 5 man t3 griefer corp who they cannot hope to stand against
result
10 new players paying to play a game and are sat in station with no way to undock as the t3 morons will follow them.
what happens?
the 10 players quit, they like eve, but why pay for a game when you cant even play together in a corp without getting station camped by grifer corps and alliances? |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3102
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:29:26 -
[12] - Quote
Wrath Of Titans wrote:Danika Princip wrote:...What?
Highsec wardecs and nullsec conflict are not connected in any way. They're completely different playstyles.
Go compare the total membership of those highsec guys you named with any null bloc, and explain how they're going to somehow change anything at all. Null sec is a stagnant blue ball with all you alts smacking everyone around in empire, not to mention 3/4 of goonswarm *numbers* as you put are alts and not actual players. We need to get ur alts back into null n start null being the war ground it should be But then u destroyed the one alliance that made that happen didn't you, thru underhanded trickery
The only empire alts I have are jita station market alts and a couple of cyno alts. Wardec changes wouldn't affect me in the slightest.
I'd also like you to find me one single null alliance that ISN'T filled with alts.
And to explain how moving the alts you think are in highsec into nullsec is going to change anything, at all. What war do you think is being prevented by alts in marmite? HERO are fighting PL, Russians are doing what they always do, N3 just lost in fountain (again)...
Even if every highsec wardec group was comprised entirely of nullsec alts (HINT: They aren't), moving them into null wouldn't suddenly start a massive war. What would be the point? Who would hold the territorial gains either side might make? Who would organise the damn thing? It takes a lot to get ten thousand kittens herded the right way, even more if you're going on the offensive instead of defending.
Also, which alliance are you even referring to there? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
738
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:32:10 -
[13] - Quote
You can't make rules to prevent the situation you describe. It's a pvp game. It's on the label. Buyer beware.
I'm not a fan of griefing. Personally I think it's pretty boring. Some guys have found a way to log in day after day and get a sense of fulfilment out of winning one sided conflict. To each his own I suppose.
That being said, wardecs could use some work.
1. Return war dec costs to right side up
2. Put a hard limit on the number or wars you can assist at any one time (concord sanctions war decs, so they sure as hell can limit the number of them you can get involved with) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
361
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:24:18 -
[14] - Quote
Wrath Of Titans wrote:
Set the war deck limit to 5 wars per any corp/alliance. Set the limit of a corporation/alliance being war decked i.e the corp/alliance can only be war decked 5 times at anyone time.
So for 250mill i can get alts to war dec me then declare the wars mutual and never be decced again?
an idiot me thinks |
Leah Agenon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:35:02 -
[15] - Quote
War dec's would be of better quality if the hordes of imbeciles wardecing in HS would actually PvP.
Instead they spend their time playing station games and being opportunists and going after freighters and cyno's or any other ships that can't shoot back in order to be at the top of other stupid boards. Marmite and co's are perfect examples ....
In HS fights war dec fights should be set outside a 200km radius (no war zone) of stations and gates by getting CONORD involved inside that zone. Any other celestial like AB, poco's. POS's. etc... is fair game.
|
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:44:57 -
[16] - Quote
I do agree that there's more wardec trolling happening than there should be, but I don't think a hard cap is the answer here. As other have already mentioned, all someone needs is a few alts to go back to carebearing unhindered.
Instead, I think an escalating war dec cost would solve this problem a little better. Each war costs more than the previous one, but a symmetric war (mutual declaration) doesn't increase the scaling, and splits the war cost between both corps.
This prevents a corp from locking themselves out, and it prevents the trolling where a corp has dozens of active wars going just to prey on carebears. Moreover, it incentivizes the mutual, unending wars (live RvB) that provide so much of the extant pvp content in high sec. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1030
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 23:03:38 -
[17] - Quote
Going to chime in here a bit more.
I am the CEO of a 4-pilot, single out-of-pod entity corp that specializes in hisec wardecs among other things. I target a mix of small, active corps that look like they'd be fun to shoot at, inactive corps that have left anchored structures in space that could potentially yield shiny loot, and contracts to remove inactive towers so that my clients can claim the moon for themselves*. I would not qualify any of this as "griefing", and I doubt many other folks would either.
I know that I am not the only corp of this kind, as I have conferred with others on prices, tactics, etc. and have on several occasions lost out on kills due to someone else getting their wardec in before me.
I agree that wardec mechanics need to be looked at. I would only ask that any changes to wardec mechanics not undermine the ability of small corps like mine to operate. I've never had a wardec fee of over 50 million ISK, and I feel like that's a good entry point for a small corp.
I also understand that the whole wardec / player corp / NPC corp / wardec dodging relationship needs to be looked at, but that is, I feel, a separate issue from wardec costs.
*Why anyone would bother pay to clear a hisec moon when there are so flipping many of them available is beyond me, but hey, they pay me so I'm not going to question them.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
83
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 04:14:41 -
[18] - Quote
Tough one this war dec thingy, so here are some thoughts to add.
The first up is hard limits and to me there are actually two limits that could be used.
A hard limit on how many war decs a corp/alliance can file seems to make sense, the problem is what that limit should be.
A hard limit on how many war decs a corp/alliance can have filed against them is a really bad idea as others have pointed out.
Because of the differences between high, low and nul we really need to look at each area as an individual case. There can be no one size fits all solution to this.
War decs as much as I hate them in high sec do serve a purpose if for no other reason than to provide a game play style that many people enjoy. The real problem we face as a gaming community is how do we keep a viable WD mechanic in game but eliminate what is really just a lazy way to farm kills by war deccing god only knows how many corps and then just sit on the gates/stations and wait for the foolish to come to them.
Yes I know they pay or plex their subscriptions and they have a right to do this if they want. The problem is that in doing so they adversely impact the rights of others who pay/plex their accounts to play the game when and how they want to. I am not sure what the answer is but I do know this much. The current high sec war dec mechanic is broken and all you need to do to understand that is look at all the topics started here about how to change war decs.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2084
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 04:58:08 -
[19] - Quote
Wrath Of Titans wrote:
The issue is the simple fact that new players come in groups, they band together, create a corp to play as a team to learn the game together
along comes a 5 man t3 griefer corp who they cannot hope to stand against
result
10 new players paying to play a game and are sat in station with no way to undock as the t3 morons will follow them.
what happens?
the 10 players quit, they like eve, but why pay for a game when you cant even play together in a corp without getting station camped by grifer corps and alliances?
So make corp lites where new players can form together but are immune to war decs. The cost of such safety being no corp assets.
Then make a mechanic that ends the dec early if the defenders pull their fingers out and complete an objective. This objective can be completed for them by mercs, who cant scam because the transfer of payment is upon completing the objective.
Lower dec costs because phasing out new bros from being agressors is less fun than letting them be aggressors. And allow allies on both sides (on a one for one basis in favor of defenders if need be).
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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
741
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 14:37:21 -
[20] - Quote
Leah Agenon wrote:War dec's would be of better quality if the hordes of imbeciles wardecing in HS would actually PvP.
Instead they spend their time playing station games and being opportunists and going after freighters and cyno's or any other ships that can't shoot back in order to be at the top of other stupid boards. Marmite and co's are perfect examples ....
In HS fights war dec fights should be set outside a 200km radius (no war zone) of stations and gates by getting CONORD involved inside that zone. Any other celestial like AB, poco's. POS's. etc... is fair game.
This is totally awesome on the one hand as it would shut down the risk averse KB jockeys. On the other hand it would make it utterly simple to dodge conflict.
If you limit the (no war zone) to stations only, then it would be super. Gates are great places for combat. Sure you can jump through, but you're fair game on the other side. Turn the empire station guns into CONCORD death rays of doom for combat inside the (no war zone). Make undocks gank only forcing the agressor to trade his ship's hull for the ablity to shoot someone inside the docking ring.
CCP.... PLEASE.... pretty pretty pony please!!! |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
741
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 14:43:41 -
[21] - Quote
Zed Rachalon wrote:I do agree that there's more wardec trolling happening than there should be, but I don't think a hard cap is the answer here. As other have already mentioned, all someone needs is a few alts to go back to carebearing unhindered.
Instead, I think an escalating war dec cost would solve this problem a little better. Each war costs more than the previous one, but a symmetric war (mutual declaration) doesn't increase the scaling, and splits the war cost between both corps.
This prevents a corp from locking themselves out, and it prevents the trolling where a corp has dozens of active wars going just to prey on carebears. Moreover, it incentivizes the mutual, unending wars (live RvB) that provide so much of the extant pvp content in high sec.
There is little difference between this and a hard cap. There are many folks that can easily afford to put a war out of the reasonable price range.
Put a cap on assists and enforce the 200km no war zone around HS stations. Low and null stations are fine as is. Change the cost scheme to scale with directly with corp/alliance size. These 3 things will cure many war dec ills. |
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:12:21 -
[22] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
There is little difference between this and a hard cap. There are many folks that can easily afford to put a war out of the reasonable price range.
You misunderstand me. The cost escalation is only a cost escalation on the part of the wardeccer, not the corp they're shooting at. Any number of corps can declare their first active war against a single target at 0 scaling costs,. However, in order for your corp to aggress against 20 or so corps at once, your costs increase dramatically.
This prevents people from locking themselves out with a hard cap or scaling costs. |
ST Spacer
Black Salmon
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 17:13:39 -
[23] - Quote
Looks like a care bear is scared. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |