|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2148
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 10:51:24 -
[1] - Quote
The current meta of very large, very powerful dedicated PVP entities declaring war on large numbers of other entities and those other entities having no war-fighting capability of their own is a product of the changes to the war system.
Carebears begged and pleaded with CCP to have wars be like this. And they continue to beg and plead for CCP to make it worse. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2150
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 11:33:33 -
[2] - Quote
Oh look a disdainful carebear on its high horse. How terribly new and interesting. I sure do expect for it to have lots of interesting ideas about how to improve the game.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2155
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 16:59:34 -
[3] - Quote
I just want to know what the end game is. When all is said and done and it's impossible to destroy another player's ship in highsec then what? How is the game going to be better, what kind of super amazing content will that generate?
Where is the value of removing PVP gameplay meant to be? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2157
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:12:10 -
[4] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Raising the cost achieves nothing but the opposite.
Noobs will be unable to afford wardecs. Old megacorps as you put them have ISK to **** out anyway.
Malcanis' Law applies. Sorry but that's simply no solution. In fact we already saw this happen with the Inferno war changes. Increasing the cost of wars just means the people who want to fight wars as their primary form of gameplay have to organize into larger groups to lessen the financial burden on the individual members even if they would prefer to be independent. The side effect is the increased power of war dedicated entities.
Anything that makes wars more exclusive will make the existing problems worse. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2159
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 19:47:02 -
[5] - Quote
alexclone1 wrote: Obviously the inferno war changes are the problem. War decs used to DOUBLE after every war dec. The first 2 were pretty cheap (50m, then 100m isk). This would allow the small guys to war dec, and at the same time ensure that too many corps couldnt pile in on an industrial corp at once.
Also remember that the base cost of a war for corporations was 2 million isk with the doubling and a 3 war limit.
This made it possible for very small groups without an alternate source of income to exist. Whereas now the players that would form these groups join an established group rather than creating their own, adding to its power and contributing to its spending capability.
Instead of having many smaller, less dedicated PVP groups that a mixed or pve focused group could actually defend themselves against instead you get these powerful highsec apex alliances that Joe shmoe can't hope to seriously oppose.
There's also the fact that the ally system, or more specifically the unilateral nature of it, makes wars horribly unappealing to groups not entirely geared towards PVP. Not only is it certain that the only people who will ever declare war on you are dedicated PVP groups, but the size and power of those groups will be much, much greater than it used to be.
There were some benefits to the Inferno changes, but overall it has been super harmful to highsec PVP gameplay. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2161
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 21:34:52 -
[6] - Quote
alexclone1 wrote:buff war decs to the price to flip a corp. This is an example of someone who doesnt have the ability to view life from another's perspective. There are others that want to play the game in their own way. Not your way.
There is a whole universe of pvp opportunities. Why would you want to further buff high sec war mechanics?
You shouldn't think about it in terms of buffs and nerfs. You should think about it in terms of making highsec not suck **** for everyone involved. The current situation with massive, extremely powerful wardec entities and other groups just being totally defenseless and incredibly passive isn't fun for anyone.
It's not fun for the carebears who feel like they can't win a fight because numbers, it's not fun for the aggressors who don't get a fight and it's not fun for the random person flying through space who doesn't see any interesting things happening in the space he's passing through.
What we should all want as players is for the mechanics to be good, not for them to benefit our personal playstyle. Right now the ally system massively benefits me and people like me, but it's hugely damaging to the general accessibility of wars to the general populace, subsequently I think it needs to be changed. Reducing the cost of wars, specifically for corporations against other corporations (vice against or between alliances) wouldn't benefit me at all, but it would allow for smaller groups to exist again and subsequently give carebears a better chance to effectively defend themselves.
The carebear approach to proposing war changes is inherently to make them more expensive and more difficult to execute, that will only widen the gap between the aggressors and defenders and make the current issues more extreme. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2169
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 00:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Crime and punishment isn't even the appropriate subforum for this thread. Warfare and Tactics would have made more sense. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2170
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 03:05:36 -
[8] - Quote
There's a reason why people who make claims about their personage but post with alts.
It's entirely trivial to verify the claim made, and typically if it was verified the details of the situation can shed light on the subject matter.
All alt posting does is make people question your credibility. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2173
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:00:40 -
[9] - Quote
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.
It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2174
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:55:51 -
[10] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:The issue is that it really depends on your own conduct, this type of war with Marmite is utterly boring, my experienced members just have no interest in chasing around Marmites GTFO type of play, so they are all playing GTA 5. When I was around there was one roam, while I was away they did three roams and we did not get anything to shoot and were happy to lose the ships we were in. So now my corpmates are not logging in, that is at the core of the issue, I have PvP players who find Marmite so boring that they don't bother logging in and I feel bad because I got them to come back to the game, wish I had waited until the 0.0 changes had been applied, would have been better.
But I did give it 18 days and we did go look for some fights, so its just one of those things. Killing Marmite is not hard. They're fractional, bad at communication and careless. Their own behaviour and methods of operation render them comically vulnerable to people who're willing to attack them. They aren't boring, they're always active and they're never paying attention to you specifically.
You used the term "roam" which tells me that you just don't know how to achieve kills in a highsec war, which is understandable considering the unusual nature of highsec. Specific tactics for fighting highsec wars are a little tangetical to the subject of the thread, but considering the ten billion isk in kills my alliance has achieved since we declared war on them earlier this year I can tell you for a fact that it's not Marmite that is preventing you from killing them, it is that you aren't using appropriate tactics.
It's not a problem with wars that defenders don't know how to fight them, not exactly. It's a problem that highsec PVP is so rare and so exclusively dominated by dedicated PVP groups that people who aren't part of those groups never learn how to effectively fight those wars.
Subsequently the post inferno meta has shifted to incredibly weak, passive defenders trying to evade wars by using corp mechanics or not logging in for weeks at a time and large, powerful groups of aggressors having to take a shotgun approach to find enough opponents who actually undock ships. |
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:13:20 -
[11] - Quote
There's a bunch of little things about the inferno war changes that are unexpectedly problematic.
With the removal of the ability to retract wars carebears announced "Haha now there are consequences for foolhardy aggressors biting off more than they can chew!" however in the case of mixed or PVE focused groups, even if they manage to beat or frighten an aggressor once they don't want to be at war with them for the entire week. With the inability of the aggressor to hit the "this was a mistake" button they are instead left with the surrender system, which they're unlikely to use for pride reasons so instead they redouble their efforts and attempt to recoup their losses.
Rather than adding consequences for attackers, removing the ability to retract wars just robbed defenders of the ability to win wars and make them end early.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:54:19 -
[12] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:war decs make it impossible to realistically grow a non-PvP corp in highsec. So again, blame the aggressors, they are the ones creating the current situation. No they don't.
I know that because in 2010, prior to the inferno war changes I was in a 300 man highsec alliance and we did perfectly fine even when we were wardeced for long periods of time by different groups. I liked dealing with wardecs from random 2-10 man wardec corps, we frequently won and the people involved felt pride about helping defend their group identity.
In the current environment, that alliance would perpetually be cycling through wars with large, well funded dedicated PVP groups and it probably wouldn't have lasted as well as it did.
Wars aren't a bad thing, in fact I think they're necessary to make highsec an interesting place worth playing the game in, I used to view the notification of being declared war on as "A challenger approaches!" flashing on the screen.
The real problem for defenders is that the present mechanics lead to them always facing very hard opponents while also being very inexperienced and for wars to be very frequent. The problem for aggressors is that in order to get anything to shoot at they need to declare enormous numbers of wars which requires the financing of a well established group.
It's an imbalance that could be repaired and lead to highsec PVP actually being a fun thing again, but carebears don't actually want that to happen. They are only interested in seeing types of gameplay they don't like removed from the game. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 23:56:29 -
[13] - Quote
Dec shields, both the alliance hopping method and declaring war on yourself with alts used to be classified as exploits and large highsec entities existed prior to those being declassified.
Dreddit comes to mind as a large, successful entity that existed as a highsec group during that period and it turns out they did perfectly well.
The problems back then were pretty specific. The corporate vote system was ********, the 3 war limit was excessively restrictive, the cost of wars between two corporations was too low and the surrender mechanic was utterly non-functional.
Really all of that was just a lack of iteration, the base cost of wars should probably have been brought up to 10ish million per war, the corporation vote should not have existed and the surrender mechanic should have been made to work without both CEOs being docked in the same station.
This current system is a hot mess, and it was worse when it was initially implemented. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2177
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:41:09 -
[14] - Quote
We've done the thing where a bunch of people declare war on marmite all at once and punch their teeth in.
It's not that entertaining. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2179
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:27:05 -
[15] - Quote
Oh it accomplished plenty. Marmite sure as hell doesn't ally into our wars any more, actually no English speaking group does.
There's just less fun to gang up on marmite than there is to playing a different game for weeks then suddenly showimg up in force with no particular provocation, making something explode then going back to your other game.
They're a big clumsy beast that doesn't respond quickly they have poor US TZ representation. This way is much better. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2196
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 01:51:52 -
[16] - Quote
GTA5 is pretty effective at making my entire alliance not play EVE. This is a problem experienced by everyone. |
|
|
|