|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
346
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 07:58:01 -
[1] - Quote
Introduction Hey I couldn't bring myself to use a forum alt's post anymore because well this is C&P. Ok keep it constructive I think we all got our bitching out on the other thread already with 16 pages and possibly 5-6 decent posts.
Why do you think they are/aren't broken? What can we do to improve and/or fix the current mechanics?
Couple of protocol things. Don't use forum ALT's on this and let it descend into bickering. If you have a question about mechanics post it as a question. If you have a suggestion post it as a suggestion. Whining will be trolled by someone.
My experience I personally have been on the Eve Uni side of wars, The Null-sec renter side, in Nulli for wars, in a wormhole corp for wars and finally I am an evil High-Sec wardeccer myself. I started the game as all newbros do/did with no clue what I was doing and thankfully got pointed to Eve Uni. There on day 1 or 2 I lost my precious itty 2 full of my evely possessions (maybe 6mil's worth). As a result I joined the Uni's standing fleets to combat these 'Evil' guys and found a form of PvP like I had experienced in no other game. I learn't from the more experienced guys and in my second month in game I bagged my first solo PvP kill against a Marmite of all people. This combined with a desire for vengence had me sign up fro 6 more months of this game as I decided it was like no other I had played.
Now I feel that wars in High-Sec are necessary as it forces players to realize they will have interactions with others at times that may not be convienient. They will lose ships to others and the sooner this happens the better. I personally do not use in corp haulers anymore. Good thing I got that down pat before I had a really really stupid loss .
As part of the Null/WH community High-Sec wars had little to no impact on me however I did see comrades lose things. I myself like to be immersive and if i live somewhere I really live there.
As a evil wardeccer I can see issues with cost of wars as they currently are yet I don't feel increasing the cost is going to fix it. 50Mil isk Wars becoming 100Mil isk wars won't solve the issue. I would welcome all ideas on this subject.
I have only seen the current system and feel that it works but would be happy to review that position with somebody else providing a reasonable well thought out idea that could improve the current system or even replace it.
Issues Now the only issues I see in High-Sec wars are POS's. I think that large towers are far too efficient and cheap in their current format and that the only people who can effectively threaten this asset are awoxers and large groups like the Highsec mercenaries. There is no means in which a average 20-30 man sized corp can take on one of these if it is setup properly. I feel they take copetition away from smaller groups wanting to contest systems/resources in High-Sec. This is my personal observation and I look forward to hearing what you all think.
PS no forum ALT's
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
352
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 09:42:51 -
[2] - Quote
I like what I'm reading. Will revise op when I get home
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
357
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:09:32 -
[3] - Quote
Lachesiss wrote:*Ban alt reps* This means any alt repping is slaughtered by concord. Not this flashy yellow crap. Alts would have to join the corps that are actually in the war.
*Ban fighting on the main trade hubs* Actually stuff it ban it system wide on main trade hubs and anybody at war cannot enter the trade hub system.
Bring back the 3d hologram naked chick in gallente stations. It would take there mind off aggression.
Ahh sod it make all of eve null and we can just kill each other everywhere.
Blimey these Mojito are strong *Hic* Lol. I agree with reps and boosts forced in alliance/whomever assisted the war. As far as suspect games go I think that is another kettle of fish
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
357
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:16:04 -
[4] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:(Also reserved as a just in case) lol
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
368
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:26:15 -
[5] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Anyway ... this isn't GD ..... so please accept my apology for this question ....
... is there a point to give actually though-out input? Yah if this gets good ill mail it off to various 'people'
Besides this is where the cool people hang out. they can move it once the content is down
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
369
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 14:13:18 -
[6] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:PvEers have a goal Yea, make overall game significantly worse to 'make them interested' This approach will get you much support! Feel free to post constructively below. Or don't just avoid the urge to troll needlessly
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:43:15 -
[7] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:March rabbit wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:PvEers have a goal Yea, make overall game significantly worse to 'make them interested' This approach will get you much support! Feel free to post constructively below. Or don't just avoid the urge to troll needlessly Well... I can only say that approaching the problem only from Merc side will not give any good results. You see only one side: you want people to wardec and kill. You don't see it from other side. From side of players who does not want to be decced and killed. Try to approach the problem from other side: what needs to be changed in the game to make PVE players MORE interested in fight? I can say that it's mostly PvPers who make PvEers evade PvP at all cost. Duels and suspect baits - once you have seen it you will never accept duel request or open fire to some suspect. Even more - you WILL warn your friends. Result: the little opportunities for learning to PvP in high-sec are gone. I think fixing duels and suspect games would increase people's interest in high-sec PvP for the start. - no neutral logi for duels and suspects - no OGBs for duels - maybe disable bumping function when in duel Not sure if this would provide more PvP players but it will stop to make people to evade it. So you feel that increasing income for PvE'ers in battles with other PvE'ers over PvE based objectives Would not encourage PvP in highsec? what would encourage PvP in highsec then? I'm all ears on changes to assist with this idea but this isn't the post on how to fix suspect mechanics to be honest. That's a whole new kettle of fish that also needs to be looked at. Lets look at one major issue on this thread and I'll do a suspect mechanics thread another day.
Again not trolling but if income isn't a motivator what is? Also I was a unista. I can appreciate what it is like to be wardecced constantly and how hard it is under current mechanics to deal with it. While I am currently on the other side of id it's not so long ago that I dont remember what it was like .
Now for a story. There was once a group of bears called The Foundation To Protect Endangered Carebears. These lads were by far some of the most beary bears the game has ever seen. But they had enough in their ranks that were willing to give PvP a go. After one battle with them where they tried to drop on our small fleet that turned out to not be so small (we had even numbers in the area we just weren't expecting a fight) we convoed them and worked out a bit of a deal where we would take some 'fair' fights with them every day we could both get numbers and school them in similar PvP. Now while killing them was an actual contract and we couldn't give up going for their PvEers too their PvP lads were more solid for this. This small alliance claimed a decent sized section of highsec for themselves and through one means or another began to drive out all competition in the area. Their motivation was ownership and this simple motivation pushed career miners and mission runners to band together and form some of the worst PvP fleets you have ever seen . But they had fun and they took the space from their less aggressive competitors. Had they continued at that rate they may very well have 'owned' half of amatar space by now and certainly could go toe to toe with any merc corp.
I feel if you combine 'ownership' and 'ISK rewards' together in highsec and lowsec with a new set of structures that lets everybody know you live here and rewards you for living here it will not only improve highsec and lowsec but will also drive competition for the better areas and thus will attract people to form bigger highsec groups to compete over these while at the same time allowing the smaller groups to get into 'less desirable' areas and grow there while not really getting picked on by anybody due to the changes i proposed in declaring war on others. I would be intrested to hear your thoughts on this?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:35:48 -
[8] - Quote
Saving this spot before someone reflexively tries to troll veers. I'll be on a computer in an hour hold off till then guys
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:25:28 -
[9] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: NPC: - taxes and penalty to mining - no lvl4s (just blitz lvl3s and you fine) - did i miss something?
Well the tax penalty for NPC/Social Corps would also encompass LP so even blitzing L3's isn't going to have the same rewards
March rabbit wrote:Again: You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players". Personally i'm trying to put myself into such situation.... For now i think i would either: 1) accept losses (taxes, no lvl4s) and ignore new system 2) add alts to my account and switch between them while in war 3) move to 0.0 renter empire In both cases you got nothing in high-sec. Yes, you did hurt my PvE playstyle so maybe that was what you really wanted to achieve?
Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. Does anybody actively dispute that?
With current changes to nullsec 0.0 renting empires are about to become a whole lot more frequented I think. At least your enemies are red and blinky (depending on overview settings) in your local window. A vigilant player can avoid them and an active corp could perhaps counter them especially if the large corps I see growing from these changes recruit PvPer's.
Nobody is attacking you don't take this personally mate. You want changes. I'm proposing some that don't turn High-Sec into Disneyland. Eve is gritty. Eve is harsh. It makes Eve fun.
I look forward to hearing from you after clarifying my stance for you
Next
Estella Osoka wrote:Customs Office ownership was never going to be a motivator. Hisec Planetary Interaction is a joke, and one can get better profits by doing it in lowsec or null. People who do use planets in hisec use them as manufactories for the tier 4/5 commodities.
Besides if I want to use a planet in hisec and don't want to pay high fees, I can just negotiate with the people who own the POCO for blue status and get a lower tax rate; or just hire a merc corp to blow it up so I can put down another.
Also, for a POCO to actually make some isk for that corp, it has to own a lot of them and the tax rate has to be set at a price people are willing to pay to use that planet.
So yeah, hisec POCOs are not a big conflict generator.
Maybe make it so that wardecs actually payout substantial isk to the winner, but in a way that can't be exploited; which I can't think of.
I do like the idea of a hisec iHub in each system that a corp can own and it increases their isk generation, but can only switch hands through a wardec. However, it would have to be implemented in a way that could not be abused. Main type of abuse in that system would be that a big alliance would go out and take them all, and then no one could take them back because that alliance was too big to take on. Kinda like the CFC in hisec. The hisec blue donut if you will.
As far as POCO's go I personally have owned 3. They made their ISK back in less then 2 months. After that it was all profit and content. But perhaps POCO's need to be looked at in this new proposal. I'll have a think on it. Otherwise they get captured using the entosis link as individual entities. hmm. any ideas on how to improve POCO's inside of this proposal?
I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You win. War ends. You get 375mil back and the constellation. Marmite get 375mil back and you pay them their fee.
Scenario B You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You lose . War ends. Your enemy gets 750mil ISK in winnings and you and Marmite get gif trolled in local for the next 2 weeks till you can try again.
Scenario C You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You win. War ends. Marmite gets back their 375mil and you get the (offensive investment)/2.
Scenario D You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You lose . War ends. You lose your constellation bonus. You must seek out a new home and your home system is the only 1 in which you generate your 15% bonus (or whatever the bonus is). (Defender assist ISK)/2 goes to the victor.
War is Gritty. War is Harsh. War is Expensive but has great reward potential. Sounds very eve to me Also while CFC( or whatever they want to call themselves these days) could certainly try and abuse this I think the value of the assist should scale with the amount of people in the assisting alliance. This will limit the blue donuts as its not going to be profitable to attempt this
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:39:23 -
[10] - Quote
@ the suspect haters/supporters/inbetweeners and neutral logi ppl. This isn't the post to discuss this. If this goes well I'll have an open discussion about suspect mechanics at a later date. If you really need to discuss this start your own thread plz and thankyou
Mobadder Thworst wrote:Sorry I'm late, was over at the swimsuit competition. I have never felt so pretty!
I think the problem with wars right now is that they are too impersonal. The high costs have destroyed the small local war dec vender. Those people who used to provide that excellent service and personal interaction had to get jobs with large impersonal merc corporations who only know you are a flashie.
A local 3 person corp just can't make a go at it anymore with costs and structure being what it is..
Those small corps made it possible for targets and aggressors to really get to know each other and have fights.
The small local war dec corps were fun and much easier to defeat. I think they were good content.
I can lament the death of can flipping now, if you want to see tears. Tragedy, it's just tragedy... sorry Mo but my proposal ends your 3 man wardec corps too . sorry . feel free to continue with your other evil avenues tho
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Things I feel should change:
1) Surrender is presently meaningless for small corps, they can reform without cost. - Suggested fix: Add benefits for significant membership tenure in a corp. Perhaps the removal of the 11% NPC corp tax should apply only once you've been in a corp a week, and long term membership (30+ days) might give you +3% incursion LP rewards or something like that hmm interesting approach. I shall have a think on this.
Veers Belvar wrote:The whole war system is poorly designed and ineffective. It tries to force highsec PvE players to engage in ship to ship combat, which they have no interest in doing. The game should be about enabling fun, not forcing folks to do what they detest. The only long term solution is to get rid of nonconsensual wardeccs in highsec. Veers. I was hoping to see you here and I mean that without the usual trolling . What do you think of the social corps for people who do not want to gt dragged into non consensual wardecs? I think that if you want to make a solid mark on eve you need to be vulnerable. You want to clutter up moons well somebody needs to have the ability to unclutter them right? I think these new social corps would fit the bill of the PvEer who has 0 PvP intrest. From your perspective is there anythign wrong with the social corp as it stands in post number 4? If so how can we fix it while keeping it in balance? I'm competently open to ideas on this thread and once I'm happy with it i'll spam various entities with it till they at least look it over . Before that though lets hear all the good ideas C&P have to offer.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. Do you think that the social/player corps would find a suitable home for both these types of PvE players while also accommodating the dedicate High-Sec PvPers?
Thoughts people? suggestions? post them here or convo me in game
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:11:04 -
[11] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend their time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers. You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game. I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really? I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob. This is a mechanics change/idea post. please find other avenues to argue circular arguments and whine about current mechanics. There are a dozen posts available for just that. Thankyou
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
386
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:01:55 -
[12] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Anyway ... this isn't GD ..... so please accept my apology for this question ....
... is there a point to give actually though-out input? Yah if this gets good ill mail it off to various 'people' Besides this is where the cool people hang out. they can move it once the content is down Mail it? Why? Wouldn't a sufficiently supported thread in F&I be better? This sounds like you want to gather ideas for others to claim for themselves. :p Paranoia is strong in me when it comes to this. Missed this one. Nah the thread can move to wherever once the people who regularly discuss these issues are done. The other forums tend to lose the point quite quickly. Here we are on page 3 with what a half dozen snide remarks and as many useless posts. I'd say even if it degenerated into a troll fest now it was successful. Its a topic that has been a passion of mine for a year now. I look forward to veers feedback if it's constrictive/ positive even if it's contradictive. I'd also like to see some average sized corps that op in highsec/lowsec post their feelings on this too. If anyone knows any hit them up on how they would feel about this?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
386
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:06:18 -
[13] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
Under what circumstances do you get flagged? In a war? If that's the case it sounds broken, since if your alliance is in a war, you're in it together.
Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out.[/quote] This would be solved with the ability to assist on both sides
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:31:26 -
[14] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other? If me and you were in the same alliance but in different corps, and we get into a war with some yoddal. If I was to try and rep you while in a fight with wartarget, I would go suspect despite fighting war targets and you being in the same alliance with me. Sorry if I was clear enough, I sometimes have that problem when explaining things, brain runs faster then the fingers do. =S This is actually incorrect. If you were in corp a and I was logi in corp b and we were both in alliance 1 I would not go suspect for repping you against alliance 2 should we be at war. However if you had a limited engagement with random s and I repped you I would.
Now if you were ally 1 I was ally 2 and we both had SEPARATE wars with ally 3 I would go suspect repping you.
Now if we had a war where I assisted you I'm not sure to be honest. I have witnessed assists rep pocos and Post's without going suspect yet I have gone suspect for repping allies before
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 11:14:21 -
[15] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:This thread again. On the topic of making wars more meaningful, I shall repost this:Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?
Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.
This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.
To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that. 1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure. or 2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.
The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but also the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.
Sounds intresting. How would you stop a large group from deploying 1 in every constellation/system?
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you... The problem with this is the ISK amounts are impossible to balance. You will find the defenders are better off dropping corp / using alts to continue making (less) ISK unimpeded. Take a look at four defenders fighting for a reward of 500m (125m each). All they have to do is PVE for a couple hours to earn that. If we up it to 1b, it now costs a base fee of 1b just for the attacker to declare war. The reward is still a mere 250m for each of the four defenders. Against any of the main mercenary groups four pilots wouldn't cut it though. Now you have twelve, and the reward is less than 100m each. An alternative idea from a previous thread was each war declared spawns a war structure. The defenders have the opportunity to attack the structure, reinforce it and then destroy it. If they succeed the war ends and cannot be re-declared for a period of time. This gives defenders a clear reason to fight in wars. It also helps limit the amount of wardecs that can be successfully deployed by one group without having to use ISK or mechanics as the limiter. The other side to this is that huge alliances would be able to easily deflect wardecs. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate. Well that's why I proposed to get these benefits utilizing a structure to start with. This single structure would be the whole focus of the war and the only good reason to declare one would be to contest a richer region of highsec then you currently own. The rewards monetarily are really only a bonus to winning not an incentive to declare it otherwise like the old bounty system it would be heavily abused.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 11:23:11 -
[16] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why?
Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally. Quote: That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that. You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way. 1) remove PvP in low- and 0.0-sec in favor of high-sec? 2) remove high-sec incursions (which are mostly used by 0.0-seccers alts)? Totally supporting this idea. Kaarous to CSM! Guys really? Really Nobody is removing or contemplating removing this. Again not the tread for suspect mechanisms. Anything suggested here would not alter wh or null and would hardly affect low and not in any negative way anybody has discussed.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
403
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:14:47 -
[17] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:My issue with highsec wars is twofold: They don't provide content to those who don't want it, as they will just dock up/not log in (Weaponizing Boredom)
They lack any real function beyond bullying.
The issue with wars, to me is wrapped up in a larger jumble that includes Incursions, station docking, and NPC corps. There is nothing worth fighting over in highsec that cannot be had without fighting over it. The best you can do is passive-aggressively **** off incursion runners by popping the MOM. This should be the type of thing Wars can deal with, but they simply can't as the fleet that does it will be in 1 man corps and such.
As a whole, highsec is really broken. If it is to be a place to grind out isk and haul so our alts can pewpew in the other areas of the game, then let's just make it that. If it is supposed to be a meaningful sec to participate in, then CCP is going to have to redesign almost every aspect of it from the ground up, and then maybe wars will have a purpose.
So touching on this what do you think of the proposed changes? everything you just mentioned is wrong with it i have made an attempt to encompass in both my OP post 4 and my replies. Do you have any suggestions to improve theses things that is not already suggested?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
444
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:19:12 -
[18] - Quote
Thank you ( most people) for sticking to the theme and generating a decent discussion on this for once. I'll alter my op with my thoughts about it all and see if isd will be kind enough to move it for me. Great ideas here without the 15 pages of drama. Again thank you.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
444
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:55:54 -
[19] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Not to derail the thread, but I will admit to being guilty of not being arsed to go chasing after people in Cynabal's and Svipul's, I had so much experience of just that in null sec, though that was before Svipuls. I loved it when the Tier 3 BC's came out then it was just create a screen for them that would kill them if they came in and blap them as they tried to kite, they hated it and it was sweet revenge, problem is that we still did not get to kill them, it just meant that they could not have their fun... We've killed so many Marmite T3 destroyers it's not even funny. It turns out rapid light missiles turn them into dust pretty fast. Coupled with their tendency to engage anything without thinking about what they're shooting (due to the tendency of war targets to not fight back) it makes them easy targets. Of course having an entire fleet of Orthruses and rapiers helps too. That last sentence is pretty telling. Your average highsec corp can't undock that kind of comp on a whim much less know what to do with it. Please don't start with your SP **** again. I've already more then gone over multiple times with you. Like literally just stop. You have to be willfully ignorant to pretend that a system of ship choice and effectiveness based on skillpoints trained is irrelevant. The time we had this discussion you moved the goalposts from "SP doesn't matter" to "SP doesn't matter past 15M" and then onward to "SP doesn't matter in specific situations ergo it doesn't matter at all." I was actually looking at adverts in the corp recruiting thread including some for well known merc corps - almost all of them have fairly high minimum SP requirements. Devil's Warrior Alliance requires you to have a neutral covops alt. I laughed. I am not gonna sit here and say you can't play the game until you have X number of SP but it definitely defines your in-game options. To completely stifle this argument I joined Marmite with 7mil sp's and was 3rd on the kb in my 2nd month based on that weird points system (cause my kills were solo). My 3rd month I had a Frigate alt and got 6/7th cause I was **** holding the whole time with 2 toons. One had 8 mil at this point and the other 6. Now do SP's matter? Yes. Do SP's determine the outcome of a PvP engagement? No. What you choose to go in with fittings and ships against what your opponent is fielding coupled with the damage type you/he select and the skill of the pilots in question affects it. if you are both in an incursus and select orbit at the same distance and 1 has all 4's and the other has all 5's then sure sp's matter. But if the all 4's is fit to counter the 5's and flies better well then...
Now what does any of this have to do with Highsec warfare mechanics and changes? both of you go to your corners and don't come out till you have thought about your actions and are ready to apologise
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
451
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 01:00:02 -
[20] - Quote
I for one have 2 little ones and look after them throughout the day. You manage to find a way to get stuff done despite the constant distraction. Sure it costs you from time to time but meh.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
469
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
When I play a game I prefer it to be a contest of skill and strategy, not of who can pay for more accounts. I want to play against other human beings, not their bank account.
Multiboxing vs. one target requires zero effort for OGB and minimal effort for logi/ewar. You engage/tackle the enemy, warp your trump card to 50, turn on ewar or reps, win fight. Don't pretend that takes skill.
Sick and tired of hearing "HTFU" from people who won't undock for anything short of an easy gank.
[/quote] Honestly dude you had fans here with your post a week ago. But you have just spent the last week moaning about how unfair it all is. Multi boxing is a thing and always will be a thing. If you don't like multi boxing find another game to play. Ganking is a thing and always will be a thing. If you don't like ganking find another game. I could go on but suffice it to say 90% of your whining isn't even on topic and the other 10% is still simply whining about the on topic instead of ideas to fix it. Well done on having a dozen posts and not contributing a single thing to this thread.
You were born crying but at some point you need to grow out of it.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:58:53 -
[22] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: fixed
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
486
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:56:36 -
[23] - Quote
Lyric Masters wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
When I play a game I prefer it to be a contest of skill and strategy, not of who can pay for more accounts. I want to play against other human beings, not their bank account.
Multiboxing vs. one target requires zero effort for OGB and minimal effort for logi/ewar. You engage/tackle the enemy, warp your trump card to 50, turn on ewar or reps, win fight. Don't pretend that takes skill.
Sick and tired of hearing "HTFU" from people who won't undock for anything short of an easy gank.
I'm sick of hearing people whine about not wanting to pay their subscription when running three accounts monthly is less than the cost of dinner for two anywhere decent. I'm really sick of hearing this whine when you can pay for your subscription with ISK. The cost to run three accounts is around $1.75 a day. I'm sorry, but if you can't find seven quarters in the course of your day to enjoy your hobby, again, you have other issues that need to be examined. I say that in all seriousness, I'm not trying to troll you. Now, the case may be that you are a teenager without disposable income. In that case, I feel for you a bit, but you could still easily afford an extra account even in this instance if you spent more time earning ISK and less time whining about how underprivilged you are on the forums. There are no free hobbies in this world. Running three accounts is far less expensive than golf. Most decent courses you aren't getting on the course without $50, much less money for balls, tees, drinks and food, and anything you need to enjoy this basic hobby that transcends the globe. That cost is to enjoy maybe five hours out of the month. Want to play the next day? Yeah...same costs. Not to mention it's upfront investment on clubs that are at least several hundred dollars right to start even before you find out if you'll ever be successful or truly enjoy the game. Do you see where I'm going with this? If you don't want to spend an extra monthly subscription cost (which would bring you up to six pilots at your disposal and the ability to play two pilots simultaneously) you really shouldn't make it our problem. The upfront cost to enjoy this hobby is extremely low, and the monthly cost is negligible. Not to mention that the game is fantastic even on one account and there is nothing preventing you from being a dominant pilot without ever spending another penny. To OP: I apologize for going so far off the course, but one thing that needs to be stricken from the debate is people having alts. This is not going to change, people are always going to have multiple accounts and alts. Nothing else needs to be said on this part of a highsec war debate, and I hope this poster will now actually contribute to an actual MECHANICS issues to help out issues of highsec warfare. Don't stress we had 4 good pages. I've got a draft of some of the ideas I've taken from this. I'll post it too the op and possibly post 4 when it's finished and see if we can get 1 last bout of discussion specifically on what I write then I may just copy paste it or ask it to be moved. Thanks tho you seem to have more patience left to explain things that have nothing to do with this
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
492
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:53:38 -
[24] - Quote
To touch on that I really think social corps that can't be decced need to be a thing. But they should have NPC corp restrictions/ taxes. We pay concord bribes to look the other way for a week. I don't see why concord wouldn't accept a'protection payment'
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 20:50:53 -
[25] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:IssuesNow the only issues I see in High-Sec wars are POS's. I think that large towers are far too efficient and cheap in their current format and that the only people who can effectively threaten this asset are awoxers and large groups like the Highsec mercenaries. There is no means in which a average 20-30 man sized corp can take on one of these if it is setup properly. I feel they take copetition away from smaller groups wanting to contest systems/resources in High-Sec. This is my personal observation and I look forward to hearing what you all think. PS no forum ALT's Is it too late to talk about the large towers? https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98143677/ Killing them is certainly possible, though Dirty Stinky is by no means an "average corporation." I can attest that the process is tedious. I can be done though. A dedicated and prepared group can kill any tower you can build, it's just a matter of how long it will take them. That being said there are very few groups (I only know of one, the one above) that takes out a properly setup large tower. I have taken out a few large towers in WH space in low class with proper groups. I agree it is tedious and it can be done. The problem with them is with corp sizes in Highsec that too few Highsec Corps can actually field the force necessary to destroy them compared to the number of corps that utilize them. The new structures should hopefully do away with this drama tho and my op was poorly written jumble of thoughts . But I needed to get it out as was in this environment to get the feedback necessary to clarify it for myself and so I could see the issues others were having with what a wrote down. Towers will not be a part of my revised OP
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:42:45 -
[26] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:There's a bunch of dumb stuff about POSes generally, given that in highsec you can transfer materials to and from them in perfect safety using alts, the ability to trash everything stored in them even when they're reinforced and that it takes very little time and effort to set them up, but dozens and dozens of man hours to destroy them and that they defend themselves even when unmanned just makes them a huge pain in the ass.
I don't think they're a big issue really though. I can charge outlandish prices to blow them up after all. I'm not sure how people feel about moon availability and all that crap though.
Also social corps are a terrible idea. If you want to communicate with your buddies without being able to be shot at you are perfectly able to do that via a chat channel. If you want an officially recognized group identity that links you all together then you should be subject to aggression from other groups. I think social corps will help see an end to the useless 1 man corp and flooded npc corps while allowing a small group to bond and if they decide to take that next step and setup a proper corp that can have a structure and what not they can. coupled with a few other changes I can see them having a solid place and not affecting things as they are negatively
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 23:00:53 -
[27] - Quote
I kinda wanted to make wars meaningful with this to give the bear corps more reason to engage in them while not removing them from people who have a score to settle
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
512
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 14:05:54 -
[28] - Quote
holy mother of thread derailment
First of all ignore the forum ALT as if it didn't post we of C&P are better then gettign baited by forum ALT's Second are we really solving anything by filling up 20+ posts with nonsense . Revising OP ATM stay tuned
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:14:35 -
[29] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote: When you podkill a war target, you get their full bounty payout. None of that 10% crap, but only when at war; and only for player wardecs. Example player A is in a wardec against player B, player A podkills player B, and gets full bounty payout. Considering some of the bounties certain players have, this would be a huge monetary motivator, and make the bounties relevant.
I would abuse the hell outta this for some of my high bounty toons . so would others...
good idea tho keep em coming
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:16:18 -
[30] - Quote
Tengu Grib *Facepalm Stop replying to the Forum ALT it has no standing in this forum
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:21:01 -
[31] - Quote
IT'S DONE AGAIN. Plz between trolling the forum ALT (tengu) and you know ship spinning or whatever re read the OP and post 4 and have at it
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
515
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:42:54 -
[32] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Tengu Grib *Facepalm Stop replying to the Forum ALT it has no standing in this forum Fine, have it your way. C&p rule 1 and all that. Besides for all the no fear claims he made an ALT just to post here
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
528
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 14:29:02 -
[33] - Quote
How does one go about requesting the forum thread be moved to the proper venue anyways?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 23:53:46 -
[34] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Let's revise the name for this proposal to what it really is: Proposed Changes to Legally Shoot High-sec Players
"They say evil prevails when good humans fail to act. What they ought to say is, evil prevails." GÇô Lord of War
If there's no ISK to be made in ganking the target, let's find a cheaper alternative: Let's make war profitable again!
GÇó We've decided to nerf high-sec income (again). And to make it less of an attractive option, if you choose to remain in an NPC corporation we're nailing this by another 30-40% on top of everything else. Oh wait, did we mention that NPC corps can't run any L4 or L5 missions? (this excludes burner missions as well) L4 missions are highly overrated anyway...
GÇó So you've decided to join (surprise!) a player-owned corporation! It ironically now costs the same to setup as issuing a WarDec, but don't let that deter you! Just a reminder that you need to find a minimum of 10 active players or we unceremoniously bump you back to the minor leagues and keep your deposit fee (nothing personal you understand, but we have to ensure that those WarDecs get full value!) Corporations are now safer than ever with the ability to turn friendly fire off, which ensures those AWOX'ing days are over (CONCORD does charge a small premium for this added security, however - but how can you put a price on freedom?)
GÇó Did we mention your corporation can deploy a new structure to enhance ISK income? (I know, you're welcome) Just ensure that your corporation is the first in the system to deploy one (there is a limit of one). What's that you say? All high-sec systems already have one? That's odd, they were just announced... No problem - just issue a WarDec against the owning corporation (this has worked out quite well with high-sec POCOs, as they change hands so frequently it's hard to keep track of!) After all, it's worth your while to go after these new structures - they're siphoning off a portion of your entire corporate income!
GÇó So you're experiencing your first WarDec - congratulations! Even though the three corporations and alliance massively outnumber you, don't let that be a deterrent! (think David and Goliath) If you don't logon you can't earn any ISK anyway, right? Don't worry about those neutral rep'ing alts - they'll be flagged as suspect and basically shot on sight. But perhaps combat is not your thing, and the prospect if fighting battles where you're hopelessly outclassed and outnumbered doesn't appeal to you (hey, it's not for everyone!) Before you "jump ship", remember that you won't be joining another corporation anytime soon (at least for a week). During which time there's a bounty on your head in the form of a free kill right (yes, the ones that required something substantially more evil to earn).
GÇó So you've decided to take a break from EVE. That's completely understandable. After seeing what happened to your corp mates who opted to fight (and even worse, the ones that fled with those kill rights), anyone would find that unsettling. While you're holed up in Jita, do check out the local want ads (there are some excellent bargains!) and partake in the ever-popular 'ship spinning'.
So you've decided to quit EVE. May we ask why? quite amusing if unproductive and displaying a lack fo having read the OP properly
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 00:28:52 -
[35] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Did I miss anything?
Yeah continue to read onto post 4
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:04:27 -
[36] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:This thread seems to be comprised of about 80% Marmite, Break a Wish, and CODE. All furiously lending a hand to their neighbor for a mutually satisfying ending.
Much of an echo chamber in here?
I can't see much a regard at all for the non wardeccing side.
In an effort to force people into being targets, you propose massively increasing the penalties of NPC corps, making the penalties for leaving a corp under war very high, creating structures that further leach income from everyone who doesn't belong to the group that owns it, minimum corp sizes with enforced tax rates that don't even go to the corp, and allowing the aggressor to have others assist them without wardeccing.
And the carrot? A limited availability structure that is controlled by force and must be wardecced to obtain. This structure totally wouldn't just be taken by the strongest groups around, and then sold to the highest bidder, just to be hired to take it again, over and over and over again.
This whole thread is basically just a bunch of highsec wardeccers sitting around exclaiming to each other about what a great idea it is. All the depth of a political rally. This thread is all about how to pretty much destroy the wardec system that exists and try to create one that is much more friendly to people who wouldn't normally utilize it. The leech structure is something that was suggested that I liked so I added it in. Come up with some intresting idea that will help drive conflict and i'd be happy to look at it and possibly add it too.
PS having BAW CODE and Marmite all agreeing or at least contributing to something is a feat itself since these groups typically don't get along in game
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:50:03 -
[37] - Quote
I defiantly don't speak for marmite lol. This would destroy our alliance in its current form. A limit of 5 wardecs??? what would we do?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:54:21 -
[38] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: If by "wouldn't normally utilize it" you mean they would be attracted to a system where they don't even have to put in the miniscule amount of effort that is currently required in the wardec system in order to prey on the weaker players, yes.
Dolphins, sharks, and grizzly bears don't get along either. They all would agree that making fish easier to catch would be a good thing though.
So having various groups that prey on smaller weaker corps agree that their prey should be easier to catch is basically meaningless. It has as much validity in that aspect as a bunch of highsec miners sitting around agreeing that bumpers should be Concorded. Consensus is pointless if the only people involved are those that directly benefit.
Conflict between corps should be driven by people having assets they think are worth defending. Using penalty mechanics to force people to get into PC corps and form larger corps and imposing massive penalties if they try and leave a corp under war is not "helping drive conflict", it's asking CCP to mechanically enforce you getting to shoot fish in a barrel. An opinion which you share with the before mentioned dolphins, sharks, and grizzly bears.
Let me ask you a question. Do you have an idea to fix/replace the current system that would in any way improve things and help to drive conflict in the most populated area of space?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
537
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 07:53:06 -
[39] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, what about bumpers and gankers in NPC corps? They don't care about taxes or structure limitations. They are alts who do not run missions, mine, produce, market or do anything that would affect them. They have absolutely no drawbacks for their stay in safety. They don't suit their narrative. Same as scanners, warp in dummies and loot scoopers. Any "clever use of game mechanics" to their advantage is applauded and people derided for not reading x,y or z blog. Any amusing use of game mechanics to avoid their plans is "exploiting" or other such nonsense. Any notion of using a non shooting based form of PvP is ignored, oft in the same breath complaining that people are "PvPing" them via the very same means. Typically there is no consequence proposed when the aggressing corp refuses to undock either. Basically there's not even the faintest hint that actually the tool might be inappropriate for their aims, that maybe a hammer is a bad tool to polish with. No concept of balance is in play at all. So then, a lot of the time you're not really dealing with rational, reasonable people. People do just get their panties in the most hilarious bunch that people don't just undock to die to them. It's highly entertaining. I mean, think about it, sticks only work when there is no other option. There are many other options than eve out there, people would take them. See the thing about war is all the flaws currently cut both ways and so, albeit imperfect, it is broadly balanced. I've not seen a proposal yet that improves the war meta, whilst retaining balance. I am interested in your suggestions of how one would encourage these players into corps as well. My experience in eve uni was amazing. Especially my early game history mostly in high sec. I want to make being in a corp meaningful. The whole point of this is to end the meaningless wars altogether. Mass wardeccing should not be a thing in my opinion. I'm all ears on suggestions to achieve this.
Balance Increase income and risk for one group while reducing income but also risk for others. Reduce wars and increased costs while making it more local.
Can you see what I'm trying to achieve here? It's not some stealth nerf it's a risk reward thing.
Great suggestion came through saying set a timer of one week or two on the war and no redeccing that corp for a few weeks after. Another was make alliances only able to have a ConstStruct and reduce/ remove the fee between SC/PC. Liked both will update op when I get home
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
542
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:34:17 -
[40] - Quote
OK perhaps my wording is the issue. The idea is to create more localized conflicts over resources while providing a way out for people who don't want to risk conflict. I also intended to make merc corps just that instead of the current alliances that exist. Decs for kills will always happen but the 'juicy' groups will likely also have PvP wings to hold their territory. Anybody not interested in this can make social corps. Also by hard limiting offensive wardecs assist or otherwise it should limit what is being referred to as a grief DEC.
So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations
How does this sound?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
542
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:50:53 -
[41] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:OK perhaps my wording is the issue. The idea is to create more localized conflicts over resources while providing a way out for people who don't want to risk conflict. I also intended to make merc corps just that instead of the current alliances that exist. Decs for kills will always happen but the 'juicy' groups will likely also have PvP wings to hold their territory. Anybody not interested in this can make social corps. Also by hard limiting offensive wardecs assist or otherwise it should limit what is being referred to as a grief DEC.
So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations
How does this sound? What about the situation where I truly despise my war targets and want to crush the very life out of their corporations and their morale? Under your suggested system such a vengeance war would not be possible, or at least it's effects rather easy to avoid. Or depending on how it's setup, some corporations might be vulnerable to it, but others not. But why should I not be allowed to single out an entity which has grieved me in some way, and crush them under my boot? If anything such wars are a more integral part of what Eve's war decs need to be capable of than mundane competition over resources and territory. If they are in a PC DEC away just don't have too many such enemies at once . If they stick to a SC/NPC Corp you got all the same options as current NPC/ DEC dodgers. Gank them lol.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
544
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 02:18:35 -
[42] - Quote
I also note this cut off discussion. No more ideas or objections based on reason?
Also I don't ever see the Leech structure being a thing I added it cause it sounds interesting without actually adding resources into the game. It would take up a moon anchor spot like a POS so you couldn't have both in one spot.
Also @ all the POS discussion. POS's in Highsec take a stupid amount of manpower and man hours to destroy. It's never worth it with how easy it is to take your assets out/deny them so that's why POS's wont drive conflict. As things stand there are what a half dozen dedicated high-sec groups even capable of taking down a properly defended large POS.
This is why I proposed entosis link structures because if 2 20 man corps wanna fight over some back end constellation nobody has ever heard of they can. If 2 500 man mega corps wanna brawl it out over Aulari (Osmons Constellation) They also can. However if a 20 man corp wants a Corp Struct in Osmon they only have to compete with the moon spaces available so if they have PvP capabilities they will be able to place one over a group that doesn't. But this doesn't count out the non PvP corps they simply get no 'bonus' for not risking the PvP and staying in a non deccable corp. People will choose a corp based on play style.
Perhaps remove corp size restrictions from the OP?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
544
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 02:42:45 -
[43] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:If the intended result of this proposal is to kill small corporations, it will definitely succeed at it. What I see happening is that this will simply drive more players into NPC corporations (where they'll have to just work a little harder to offset the additional tax hit) and you'll see larger mercenary corporations (maybe) attacking each other over the constellation-area structures to gain a +15% boost to their PvE activities. On the other hand, they may just divide up high-sec in a similar fashion as was done for POCOs. except for the part where the social corps aren't wardeccable and small corps are currently dead in high sec as is. Infact any time a corp approaches 20-30 members its ground into the dust by the mercenaries. These changes coupled with the limited number of decs will mean that smaller corps are much more likely to thrive and larger corps would need to PvP in order to hold onto valuable constellations. also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups...
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
546
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:06:17 -
[44] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... That coming from Marmite, who together with RVB just kicked PIRAT around in the Domain area only to let small corps' pocos fall back to PIRAT is almost comical. Currently, there is no point in small corps holding assets in economical areas unless they do it by the security by obscurity paradigm, neither will it be after such a change. They would, just as now, be forced to go to less and less attractive areas of space, where no one cares to go, and where they have less means to make money and where transportation cost, for instance, eats up a lot of the potential profits of production. I indeed see a lot of strive here. How do you propose our groups like PIRAT and Marmite A could continue to exist with these changes and B could/ would hold more then one area at a time
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
546
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:43:59 -
[45] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:By lack of opposition. You should realize full well that, when you take the past into consideration, no change to encourage more corporation activity and fight for what you want to keep has resulted in any significant change of behavior in players. They always chose the path of least resistance. But there are no benefits short a pos for a corp. This gives a significant benefit. As far as a merc group controlling these they may take one for an ALT corp but the current alliances that do this would likely fragment and being mercs wouldn't have any interest in holding a bunch of pave structures on ALT corps. One suggestion to stop this was adding a requirement of activity in the constellation before you could contest a structure.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
547
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:52:16 -
[46] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:except for the part where the social corps aren't wardeccable and small corps are currently dead in high sec as is. Infact any time a corp approaches 20-30 members its ground into the dust by the mercenaries. These changes coupled with the limited number of decs will mean that smaller corps are much more likely to thrive and larger corps would need to PvP in order to hold onto valuable constellations. also there are a lot of constellations about the place highsec could hardly be divided up between a few groups... Except why pay $50-million for effectively the same benefits of an NPC corporation? As soon as you hit 20 members you have the options of capping membership, disbanding or paying another $200-million to upgrade your corporation - at which point you can be ground into the dust by the mercenaries. You can count the number of alliances that effectively hold the vast majority of high-sec POCOs on one hand. And these are system-specific. How would constellation-wide be any different? With respect to small high-sec corporations, I agree with your assessment. Between AWOX'ing and WarDecs they've been effectively harvested for entertainment. And that's before we even get into things like ganking, off-grid boosting and neutral rep'ing alts. High-sec is the shallow end of the kiddy pool. Maybe it's long overdue for some of the larger corporations to be relocated to low-sec. Please read everything before you proceed to place your foot in your mouth...
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: So to rework it how does this sound NPC corps 10% tax. SC 0% tax before player tax. PC 0% tax before player tax. PC can anchor the proposed structures. High sec gets 10% less base yields to balance the equations
How does this sound?
10% tax break to social corps. Latest change we are discussing regarding corp differences
Also this
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Perhaps remove corp size restrictions from the OP?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
548
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 17:57:41 -
[47] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Please read everything before you proceed to place your foot in your mouth... I can't keep track of the "newest" proposals when you don't update the OP... So the "come and go" NPC corporation now costs me 1% less tax (for a net of 10%) or I can pay $50m ISK to setup a "social" corporation to park my alts and pay 0%. But I'm going to be earning 10% less, so for all intents and purposes it still works out to basically the same tax I'm paying now without any of the perks. This is getting more and more convoluted and it doesn't really do anything to address the underlying issues with high-sec WarDec mechanics, NPC corporations or player corporations. Twas my attempt to re word it for you. The underlying issues are the imbalance of the risk/ reward system and lack of incentive to form and maintain a high sec corp. The op doest get updated till things are discussed and I've got something I feel is better then what was there. Now if I understand your position correctly it is you expect greater isk rewards for the same risk as people willing to brave wardecs and even engage in them in conquest of greener pastures? I'm sorry but lower risk should equal lower rewards.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
622
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 09:36:57 -
[48] - Quote
Changed a few things in the op. Removed the leech structure Removed corp sizes as reforming a corp costs a sizeable chunk of isk with this proposal. Added a line to wardec changes
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
646
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:36:18 -
[49] - Quote
Count Szadek wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:Count Szadek wrote:I see the number game being the main issue. I would say possibly a corp/alliance tier system could help.
You may only Dec corp/alliances of the same tier. Each tier gets a new thing.
Tier 1: 1-25 members - get to change friendly fire options
Tier 2: 26-50 members - get to change tax rates
Tier 3: 51-150 members - get to anchor POS
Tier 4: 151 - 500 members - alliance logo - alliance SKIN color scheme
Tier 5: 501 - 1000 members - able to take SOv
Note: the above bonuses are just a thought / example and are not intended to be taken as a suggestion. The idea of Tiers having bonuses is the suggestion. My gut reaction is that it would screw over the merc corps as it would limit who they can take contracts on, but could be easily solveable by using the confederated type system. How would the tier system above deal with Allies? as it was just a rough though, i Hadn't honestly put much thought into the allies. Let's see...perhaps allowing offensive allies as well. if you hire an ally, the offenders could as well - allies would be restricted to the war tier as well. Example: Tier 3 Corp Declares War on Tier 3 Corp Defender Obtains Ally by a Tier 2 Corp Offender may now Obtain their own ally of Tier 2 Level Rule: You may only ally into a corp that is same or lesser tier then you - this would eliminate "Big Brother" defenses where one side could not possibly counter - On another thought you could also make it modular - 2 Tier 3 Corps could ally in to even the field from a Tier 4 ally. again this is just a thought Edit: Also on another note: it could also be adjusted (the main idea) to allow Aggressing Corps to declare war against larger tier opponents but not smaller It's an artificial restriction. Not keen. Also size of corps really make no difference in this. It's skill and dedication of the members. See Marmite vs Goons. See BAW vs Marmite. Wars actually favor the smaller more dedicated group over the huge sprawling group.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
655
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:53:16 -
[50] - Quote
I gotta be honest guys you haven't thought out what the ramifications of 5 or even 10 offensive wars would have when coupled with these changes. Dravclad do you think you would warrant a random Dec with that cap? Yes you would need to build an actual corp to be competitive and hold your chosen area. With a reason to compete with your fellow highseccer (15% increase) your threat would come from a group like your own. However a hard cap on wars on its own would systematically destroy the largest groups a few at a time.
Also this is more a carrot then a stick method no?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1629
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:10:58 -
[51] - Quote
I feel this warrants another round of discussion. I still think a content driver is needed in highsec. Thoughts?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1638
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:34:07 -
[52] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I still think a content driver is needed in highsec. If you want to drive something, figure out a way to drive these corps into lowsec. Yuck why? You should come up with a way to attract those corps to lowsec. I am trying to push for a way to drive conflict in general in highsec while removing the predator prey system that currently exists. I don't like predator and prey but if that is the only way I chose predator every time. I would rather smaller specialized merc groups doing merc things with bigger less specialized groups holing dominion over the space they live in.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:43:33 -
[53] - Quote
The goal is to increase conflict while keeping it smaller scale and pushing for it to be between similar groups instead of having a predator and prey system. Those not interested in conflict can take the reduced risk and thus reduced reward path. Saying move to low sec demonstrates your ignorance of the objective
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 19:28:09 -
[54] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Why should I do your work for you? Work for me? Noragen's the one that wants to shoot all the people. I'm just pointing out that there's already a fertile field of shooting all the people available, and usually only a half dozen jumps away. I can already shoot all the things. My issue is that nobody else in high sec has an incentive outside of the actual shooting to shoot the things. Look past corp tags for 10 minutes and read post 1 and 4. Or alternatively propose a better method of getting people to compete for areas of space and its resources or just a better way to compete. So far you have not refuted a point based on merit or added to the discussion.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1749
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 22:29:20 -
[55] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:How did I miss this one? Sorry Noragen. I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, so I'll stick with your updated OPs.
1. I like the idea behind Proposal 1. However, any kind of system- or constellation-wide benefit needs to be exactly that: a benefit to the owning corp, not any sort of penalty to anyone else. Hisec is free and open to all comers, even -10s.
There is one thing that I think should come in addition to this: monthly upkeep. You shouldn't just get a benefit like this because nobody has bothered to challenge you on it yet, you should have to pay for it. If this is going to be some melding of Sov and POS mechanics, and both of them include upkeep, this should too. Not only would this encourage corps to stay active to get the benefit, it would hopefully reduce the number of corps con-trolling* a system/constellation.
*(See what I did there?)
2. I've liked this idea and its variants for a long time (you can hardly take credit for this one). Two changes though. First, I would make the "yield" penalty to refining yield, not to actual miner yield. I know, ideally it'd be nice from your standpoint to actually reduce the mining laser yield so miners are encouraged to get out of NPC corps, but that gets into weird game mechanics issues that I don't think we want to mess with. I think it's neater and cleaner to keep changes to station/POS services, not in-space mechanics. Secondly, I would also include an increase to market transaction fees and job installation costs to your CONCORD taxes so that trade and research/industry alts are also discouraged from staying in NPC corps.
EDIT: One thing that I've seen tossed around with these ideas in the past is a minimum membership. I would totally and wholeheartedly oppose this as it would effectively destroy a way of life for myself and many of my associates. If you're willing to put yourself on the line, membership numbers shouldn't count.
3. I like where you're going with your proposed wardec changes, especially allowing offensive assistance, but I can't entirely support it. Allowing offensive assistance would get abused like all get out without hard limits on offensive wardecs and I'm pretty sure you agree with me here. The problem is that I don't like the idea of hard caps on wardecs. Scaling costs? Sure. Hard caps? No. If you want to wardec a corp that is much smaller than you, you should probably pay more. If you want to have a bunch of wardecs active at once, they should probably start costing more per wardec. If you want to keep one wardec active for several months, it should probably start costing more.
So, no to offensive assistance because I don't like the idea of hard caps and it would be broken without them, yes to scaling wardec fees to discourage long, numerous, or lopsided wars.
Cheers. While some tweaks and ideas are originals in this thread alot of it is just combined into one place and feed off each other for a total rework of the current system. The OP's do need redoing again as more tools are available to us then were when I first started it in C&P. I'm of the opinion social corps and NPC corps should share all the same stuff now except the imposed NPC corp tax gets dropped for social corps. I don't like minimum membership as much as when I first added it in here to see what the communities reactions were too it however I am still a fan of corp creation costs rising to a not insignificant amount while social corp creation could (and probably should) be free.
The wardec offensive assist would be treated the same as a new offensive war.
While I do NOT like hard caps for wars I can tell you what would happen if a group were allowed to control multiple areas. The current powers that be in highsec may see some nullsec competition for viable areas but basically we would have the new rental space in the game via the use of corp tax. Yuck. I would be a fan of the alliance HQ (or corp) was moved to the place where the main capture objective was and yes a fee to maintain your control of it is an excellent idea. I'll have a ponder on that and update (and scrap some stuff) in the OP's and get an opinion then. thanks for the input it's good having another fresh perspective in here.
FOR EVERYBODY This is about removing the predator/prey system in highsec while attempting to drive conflict and not remove it. If you have any ideas on how to achieve this feel free to add them. If you want to moan about stuff or can't see past a corp ticker there are multiple threads in C&P you can go and moan on until they get locked
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1760
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:06:52 -
[56] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:
I fully agree that the war system is not very good and creates situations like the Marmite model of dec all the things. I am fond of the idea of allowing corps to have an anchored structure which gives them bonuses in a system or constellation. Not so sure that there should be any limit on those though, no reason two friendly corps can't coexist.
One aspect of wars that I see often neglected is that any industrial alliance should be able to dec on any other industrial alliance out of spite / hate. Unfortunately this means that groups like Marmite can also do that, but some of the suggestions here would curb that at least partially.
I'll have to read over them again with the update and ponder.
This is why alliances exist. When 2 friendly corps wish to coexist with all the benefits. The issue about not limiting it to one a constellation or some limit is it doesn't drive conflict it just provides a buff.
@the fighting bears comment (phone sorry) If we buffed conflict drivers for those utilizing space and nerfed mechanics currently encouraging the predator/ prey system how many groups would be 'forced' to contest a mass dec outfit adjusting to the new mechanism? Maybe a few for a few weeks until the target poor environment bled their member base down to those wanting the actual merc life
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1762
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:40:04 -
[57] - Quote
Op is now updated. have at it again
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1797
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 09:36:02 -
[58] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets. No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Of course, the "social corp" proposal could solve this - the NPC corp that has a player-selected name and chat channel. I still am in favour of this idea as a way risk-averse players can tune their risk but still play the game with a social group while respecting the risk vs. reward side of the game. Ultimately though, corporations exist to compete with each other. This game is founded on the ideas of competition for power and resources. Players need tools to disrupt their rivals. It seems that these new structures might be just that. The fact that much of the bonus of them comes from rigs that are unanchorable, means that players will be forced to defend them, and their corporation if they want to keep the benefits of them. It all depends on these bonuses and their cost, but if both are significant, we have a new reason to fight for your corporation in the event of a wardec which might make some of the problems with wardecs go away. Seems like the OP proposal for additional, but limited, constellation-wide structure benefits could co-exists with this and drive even more conflict. So +1 in general for the idea. These new structures have much promise to revitalize the game. I might even go as far as saying the long-term health of the game depends on CCP getting them right, and maximizing their potential. Non mutual violence is part of the essence of eve. I do not want this gone however I do want there to be a reason for more people to want to do space violence.
I do think that a corp lite is needed that isn't deccabel but cant compete with a real corp on its benefits. that's an idea for another thread now
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1809
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 02:50:12 -
[59] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec? He is talking about highsec. People forget that this is something that will affect lowsec (albeit only slightly and make more isk for those living in their areas)
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1833
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 06:53:35 -
[60] - Quote
Added some ideas to the OP that people have been commenting about to get them discussed a bit more
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1956
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 16:26:28 -
[61] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...
By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.
And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.
The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing. On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D New EvE advertising tagline: CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community... Thanks for making me crack a smile this morning. Needed it. Seriously though, the vast majority of Eve criminals I've meant are fantastic people. I can only think of one exception but I won't name names. (wait maybe two come to think of it) My time among carebears though, I met a lot of people I consider to be awful people. Having spent a large amount of time among both I will say that both groups have their questionable people and I am in no way talking about their ingame methods... I tend to find that the RL threats come from the prey community (mostly there are some shining examples from the predator community) and I have heard and read chats from the predator side that honestly made me wonder if those people used those same mouths to kiss their mothers and hands to hug them (again the Prey community has some shining examples of this too). What I'm not a fan of is that there is a prey community and a predator community and no reason to intermix and I feel this is the main barrier between the 2 groups is the lack of incentive to mix them. I will respond to the posts that deserve it in the morning (like the orange post that is actually the first decent rebuttal so far until it got ruined in the last 2 sentences). see yall in the morning
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
|
|
|