Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
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
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1368
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 08:27:26 -
[2] - Quote
I think it's broken in a way that it lacks meaning.
The way forward should in my opinion be a combination of things; - Having a CORP/Alliance shouldn't be as empty as it is. -> maybe each corp should have a structure by default? A home base of sorts? -> maybe the system where the structure resides could have a form of boosts of the cop's chosing? -> maybe destroying/entosising (is that a word?) this structure would mean defeat for the corp? -> maybe defeat would result in bad stuff happening to the corp? A fixed tax that goes to the winner untill the warfees are covered? dunno... ideas welcome.
- NPC corps should be a thing for newbies only. Real newbies.
- Wars should have goals for both parties and the fees should be adapted to those goals.
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12766
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 08:33:27 -
[3] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: My thoughts on the matter are as follows:
First, severe nerfs to NPC corps. Only player corps should be capable of using L4 mission agents and receive LP from Incursions, and NPC corp players older than 90 days have an additional 10% tax on top of normal.
If being in a player corp is the optimal choice for generating personal income, then being in a corp becomes something worth fighting for. That will never happen so long as NPC corps have so few functional penalties/limitations. Doing this also takes a step towards rebalancing risk vs reward, since NPC corps give up almost nothing in exchange for a huge buff to safety.
Secondly, the dec dodge exploit must be either removed or harshly punished. There are a number of ways this can be done, and I personally favor the generation of killrights against a player who drops to an NPC corp during an active war(or anyone who rejoins a player corp within 72 hours after having dropped, perhaps). Regardless, the ability to fold a corp and make it over again in a matter of minutes must be removed. Therefore, corp creation price should increase, and possibly have a cooldown associated with specific characters creating a corporation after having left one. Furthermore, any corp that dissolves during an active war has it's name and corp ticker suspended, and given to the attacking corp as a trophy.
Thirdly, player corps would receive the ability to improve mission LP rewards in a specific consellation via a starbase module. Only one can exist per constellation, so if you want the bonus you have to destroy the starbase of the current owner. The map would show which corp controlls the module, and what system it is located in. This incentivizes PvE corps to fight amongst themselves for better territory, as well as give player corps reasons to have assets in space for reasons besides industry and manufacturing.
To summarize:
Only player corps can access L4 missions or receive LP from incursions. NPC corp taxes are raised +10% for players over 90 days old. Killrights generated against dec dodging. Corps that dissolve during an active war have their names and ticker lost, given to the attacker as a trophy. Corp creation price increase. Corp creation cooldown after leaving a player corp. Highsec ESS as a starbase module, one per constellation. Boosts LP given from mission rewards to corp members.
And then, player corps are worth fighting for. The defender has a stake in the game, the rewards that come with being in a player corp. The typical highsec corps also have a reason to fight one another, for control of the constellation.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
352
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 09:42:51 -
[4] - Quote
I like what I'm reading. Will revise op when I get home
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Lachesiss
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
381
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:04:25 -
[5] - Quote
*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*
On the third day after your birth myself and my sister's will come to you and decide your fate.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
357
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:09:32 -
[6] - 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
|
Valkin Mordirc
901
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:14:05 -
[7] - Quote
Reserved (Long post incoming.)
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY Get Off My Lawn
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:14:16 -
[8] - Quote
I think the corp system itself is broken.
First off, single-man corps should not exist. Corps should have a minimum number of people requirement, say around 20 people, and that if you are inactive in a corp for more than 3-4 months, CCP automatically drops you from that corp and places you back in the NPC corp. Corps that drop below the 20 man minimum, are given 24 hour notice before they are closed, and everyone is kicked.
Secondly, leaving a corp should have penalties. NPC corps should have higher tax rates, around 30%, and if you drop corp, you cannot join another corp for 1 week. This will prevent people from lightly hopping around corps, which i think is stupid.
Thirdly, friendly fire off should have penalties. Concord should charge your corp a premium for the ability to protect your members. This should come in the form of a minimum fee, plus taxes, that is charged to the corp. Once you stop paying, friendly fire turns back on again with a 24 hour notice.
With that in mind, any corp that is in a war, or gets wardecced, should be subject to stricter penalties if people wish to drop corp during wars.
We need to make corps meaningful in order to make wardecs meaningful. |
Valkin Mordirc
901
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:15:04 -
[9] - Quote
(Also reserved as a just in case)
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
357
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 10:16:04 -
[10] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:(Also reserved as a just in case) lol
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
|
Valkin Mordirc
905
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 11:18:57 -
[11] - Quote
In Summary.
Wars,
Wars need to be limited. I hate that I'm saying that but they do. Maybe skill based on how many you can run at a certain time. That would make it so that it not necessary for merc Alliances to form.
Cost, Wardec cost need to change as well. Corps need to be shielded at creation but only for a week. Then after the War Dec shield ends, they are dec able. The Wardec should cost will depend on a few things. Member count, Corp lifetime, should be to major factors. A new corps just made with 5 members SHOULD be more expensive than a 300 man corp that's been around for a year.
Corp creation, Corp need to have more value. Make them cost more, maybe in long run add more benefits that tie into NPC standings.
Recurring Wardecs, If you want to dec somebody for say, 3 weeks and it cost 50mil per week. It should paid up front for 150mil. The attacker can then add more time to after that, but it should have an increased amount added on so instead of costing 50mil maybe 100mil or 75mil.
Corp droppers should retain, combat timers with them. Combat timers that drop if the pilot is killed with in the grace period.
I think that covers everything?
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
20863
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:02:43 -
[12] - Quote
I know this will get lost in here ... ... but I want to once again quote CCP Tuxford's trolling ...
When you enter New Eden you are at war with everyone ... ... and you have to declare peace!
A peace-tax makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE IN THIS GAME than a war tax .....
Jokarz > you got owned?
Chris Justice > just a bit
Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death.
Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails
PERVS doing lowsec DD
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
20863
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:04:55 -
[13] - Quote
Anyway ... this isn't GD ..... so please accept my apology for this question ....
... is there a point to give actually though-out input?
Jokarz > you got owned?
Chris Justice > just a bit
Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death.
Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails
PERVS doing lowsec DD
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
368
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:26:15 -
[14] - 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
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
20865
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:41:13 -
[15] - Quote
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.
Jokarz > you got owned?
Chris Justice > just a bit
Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death.
Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails
PERVS doing lowsec DD
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
2319
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:53:25 -
[16] - 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* I like them all, including the Mojitto's !
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1598
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:59:25 -
[17] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:PvEers have a goal Yea, make overall game significantly worse to 'make them interested'
This approach will get you much support!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
369
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 14:13:18 -
[18] - 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
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1598
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 14:59:57 -
[19] - Quote
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.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 15:43:15 -
[20] - 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
|
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
20877
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:37:04 -
[21] - Quote
until inevitably the goons come and take it away ... ... and that will happen.
They will make code look like the children's party it is .........
Wow i have lost all my enthusiasm. sometimes ignorance is more fun.
Jokarz > you got owned?
Chris Justice > just a bit
Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death.
Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails
PERVS doing lowsec DD
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1599
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:55:06 -
[22] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: 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?
.... 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?
Well. - we already have it in 0.0. Did it make PvE players fight? Or it made overall more fights? - (thanks to Sol for reminding) we already have Customs Offices in high-sec. Did they make PvE players engage in PvP? And Customs Offices are "ownership + bonuses" in refined form. - you mentioned 'PvErs against PvErs' but where are PvPers then? You said 'they will assist'. Lol. They will wardec anyone around knowing that targets have no choices.
Let's compare pros and cons here: Corporation: + (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?) + 'ownership' of piece of space - creation payment - management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...) - wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses - freedom - you cannot leave the corp - with constant wars you will have everything from 'killright' to 'personal wardec'. And wars will be constant - you cannot take vacation or go to cinema with wife/kids - your corp needs meatshild to defend that structure - you cannot just move to other end of universe - you will lose bonuses from that structure you need to have and defend - you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency
NPC: - taxes and penalty to mining - no lvl4s (just blitz lvl3s and you fine) - did i miss something?
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?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
589
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 17:24:51 -
[23] - Quote
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.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:05:19 -
[24] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
I would like to see suspect games on hubs go away in highsec, thus forcing people to actually go out and work for kills and fleet fights in highsec wouldn't be a giant game of whackamole on station.
That's my personal bias. I would like to see the many people who do this all day forced to actually play the game. But I know it willnever happen.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:27:13 -
[25] - Quote
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.
This is a problem I've got at before. If you try to generate conflict by creating new and significant sources of ISK that are campable, the biggest blob is going to camp them while they farm the ISK.
I just don't see a way to fix wars so that you can make them unavoidable without breaking the game. If you make them impossible to dodge, it will be absolutely possible to wardec a player out of the game.
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:02:25 -
[26] - Quote
Please stop trolling with the premise that when you wardec someone he/she has no options at all.
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12778
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:59:39 -
[27] - Quote
To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.
Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:21:23 -
[28] - Quote
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... |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5382
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:28:41 -
[29] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.
Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board. lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12779
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:30:27 -
[30] - Quote
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.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:39:04 -
[31] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.
Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board. lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag.
So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5382
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:48:15 -
[32] - Quote
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. How is it one sided? Tbh, the people that are usually complaining about neutral logi are people on your side of the fence. Personally I couldn't care less since I'm not going to fight, and I imagine most of the people you hate in this thread wouldn't either.
Serious question, is there anything you don't complain about? You seem to hate everything these days.
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists. Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag. 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.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
5001
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:01:52 -
[33] - Quote
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
2) The defender entities have no incentive to actively resist - Suggested fix: Instead of just deleting the ISK that's paid to declare war, have the defender be able to claim it by killing the aggressors (using the exact mechanic used for bounties)
3) A minority of newbies don't understand what a wardec means - Suggested fix: CEOs that don't inform new players of the danger of a war should be hunted by the playerbase until they stop forming corps, as these people are terrible for the game.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:35:31 -
[34] - Quote
Like I said before crimewatch was ever implemented:
There is no real tactical advantage gained by logistics being neutral. A fleet that was not able to win an engagement in which neutral logistics were used would not have been any more capable of winning if the logistics were not neutral. The only advantage that was ever gained by logistics being neutral was and still is the element of surprise. What people are complaining about when they complain about neutral logistics is local chat not giving them accurate intelligence about enemy numbers.
Since people genuinely don't understand crimewatch or the system it replaced it was never the case that you could not shoot neutral logistics, ever since highsec war was a thing (2004?) you've been able to shoot at the people remotely assisting your war targets. Largely the perception to the contrary was caused by people not from highsec having their overview states not set up to show players as being flagged with aggression. Right up until inferno I routinely heard it from fairly high profile players from Nullsec, lowsec and wormhole space that they believed it impossible to shoot neutral logistics even though it was totally untrue.
This is not to mention that what qualifies as per the game mechanics "neutral logistics" extends well beyond some dude and his Onerios alt. People who ally into wars are "neutral" to the defender in the war. Everyone in the game is "neutral" to another player that has a limited engagement timer for any reason whatsoever. Being at war and having a PVP timer (not even a suspect flag or limited engagement timer) makes every person not in your alliance "neutral" to you.
Crimewatch was a horribly designed system filled with flaws. These flaws are generally considered to be intended and it's trivial to use them to your advantage when you know how to. People who are familiar with those mechanics and encounter them frequently aren't the people who are screwed over by them, the people who aren't dedicated highsec PVPers are. |
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:36:34 -
[35] - Quote
I acknowledge that wars( in my opinion far more than can flipping or mission baiting) have the ability to wash out newbros.
Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
I agree this mechanic comes at a cost and needs changed. However, the new dynamics destroy the interpersonal interactions outright.
I think an alternate solution would be to create some low level options to let noobs entertain themselves at limited risk while at war. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:40:19 -
[36] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote: Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance. |
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:56:02 -
[37] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote: Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance.
... I wasn't writing fiction here. This is a bad example of norm, perhaps; but I still think it's the dock orders for a week at a time that wash players out.
I loved the old rules, but for all the crying about every kind of griefing... The only thing I know of that washes out players is weeks of no play.
The targets decided to dock, but guys like me supported it with war decs.
I just think instead of breaking all the grief and pvp mechanics, they should have just found a way for noobs to entertain themselves or buy out of war decs or some such.
The problem is weeks of no play.
I think the current war dec and grief watch mechanics are worse than the costs of the old system. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
579
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:12:25 -
[38] - Quote
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. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2177
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:35:24 -
[39] - Quote
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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:35:48 -
[40] - 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
|
|
Saskia Laru
the 57th Overlanders Brigade
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:40:34 -
[41] - Quote
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.
That's fine if there is some give. I believe hi-sec should not be 100% safe... but if it goes that route there should be some consequence to it. Like ISK... want to be safe fine, but your not going to make ISK. No missions, no rats, very pathetic ore. EVE was designed to be a very hazardous game from the beginning. It should stay that way, but if the masses want a little safe kiddie pool to dip their toes in, they should not benefit from that place financially.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:25:28 -
[42] - 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 -
[43] - 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
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:05:05 -
[44] - Quote
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.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:11:04 -
[45] - 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
|
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 05:33:45 -
[46] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
Not empty quoting.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 05:37:48 -
[47] - Quote
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.[/quote]
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.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
386
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:01:55 -
[48] - 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 -
[49] - 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
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
601
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:36:06 -
[50] - Quote
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.
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. This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest.
March rabbit wrote: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". That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to up your risk you will be rewarded for that decision.
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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. This with one caveat. Get some of the ISK back, not earn more. The last thing EVE needs is more ISK in highsec in any form.
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 a 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.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
2332
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:50:41 -
[51] - Quote
What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ?
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
|
Valkin Mordirc
917
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:54:20 -
[52] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ?
We certainly couldn't have our yearly riot. =(
I'm working but Imma give this a thought sense it seems to be a treading idea. Right I think it's fine, it provides a centralized area for pvp.
So yeah. Give me like two hours and I'll have something to say on it.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
603
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:56:24 -
[53] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ? You'd be out a job.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5387
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:07:27 -
[54] - Quote
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?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Valkin Mordirc
918
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:18:20 -
[55] - Quote
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
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:31:26 -
[56] - 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
|
Valkin Mordirc
922
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:47:01 -
[57] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
Ah okay. I misunderstood it it was explained for me.
Thanks for clear that up.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5388
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:52:32 -
[58] - 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 That is quite ludicrous. How has that not been fixed yet?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Don Purple
Snuggle Society The Marmite Collective
1178
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 09:01:31 -
[59] - Quote
I wrote four paragraphs then deleted them.
Don Purple.
Edit: I can't spell four.
I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1604
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 10:47:16 -
[60] - Quote
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!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 11:14:21 -
[61] - 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 -
[62] - 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
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12786
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 11:47:35 -
[63] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Kaarous to CSM!
I'm actually not eligible to run, nor do I have the interest in doing so.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Daerrol
Furtherance.
122
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 12:59:07 -
[64] - Quote
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.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
403
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:14:47 -
[65] - 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
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1604
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:32:18 -
[66] - Quote
to Noragen Neirfallas: (i've tried to make it readable without lots of quotes)
Let's compare pros and cons here: Corporation: + (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?) 10% increased income from LP/ISK and Mining is quite the benefit to be fair. Make it 15%? I'm not a numbers guy. What would motivate and yet not be unbalanced?
Don't forget: being at war you will spend less time for PvE anyway. Will 'spend less time' + 'get more bonuses' be better? This is what needs to be balanced out.
+ 'ownership' of piece of space Ownership=Vanity. At the end of the day that will motivate some
Let's hope!
- creation payment That one off creation payment is negligible. A group of friends starting out in the game could pool that together in a few days of playing and it would mean something to them. Those who can afford it with no hassle wont be affected. It also encourages you financially to hold on to your in game identity.
OK.
- management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...) If you can't keep 10 players in yoru corp (including ALT's) the Social Corp proposal is the idea for you - wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses Yes the other groups will want your space if you own better space. Welcome to eve online I hope you enjoy your stay here . On a serious note this falls under the Risk/Reward category. Is painting a giant bullseye on your corp really worth controlling the Osmon Constellation?
We are talking 'will PvE players like new corporations or not?'
- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all?
I don't know about current situation but when i was living in 0.0 (back in 2011-2012) i always used PvE fits. Maybe since then 0.0 became dangerous? I can take your word on that too. In high-sec smart people use PvE oriented fits. So you want people to change their behaviour too.
Quote: 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? ... 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.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: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. This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest. March rabbit wrote: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". That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting.
As i said right from the start: you are approaching the problem from PvP aggressor side. I'm presenting you with views from other side. If you don't care about it - Ok. Personally i would love new proposed system to have some meaning for everyone involved unlike things like bumping. That's why i'm posting here.
And i haven't taken anything personal here. Thanks. Good discussion till now. Keep it going!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
250
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:00:25 -
[67] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations. If all the guys that sit on station all day with instalockers and Vindis/guards docked up had to move out into space and into other systems to find content, THAT would make the game alot more interesting. You'd see more baiting in missions and ice belts, more ganking, more baiting on stargates, and far more opportunities to lay traps for people when they can't hide in station or undock neutral logi at a moment's notice. People would actually have to move ships around and do things rather than hovering inside the docking radius in an instaloki pressing F1.
That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12787
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:48:20 -
[68] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations.
And welcome everyone to Gatecamps Online.
Your suggestion would be extremely bad, since stations are one of the few places that a natural chokepoint, which makes it easier to force a fight in said area. If you remove one, people will congregate en masse to the last remaining one, gates.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
250
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 21:57:59 -
[69] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations.
And welcome everyone to Gatecamps Online. Your suggestion would be extremely bad, since stations are one of the few places that a natural chokepoint, which makes it easier to force a fight in said area. If you remove one, people will congregate en masse to the last remaining one, gates. [edit: And of course, the carebears will then use that as rationale behind nerfing or deleting gatecamping. Just like the last ten years, you babies cry to have something nerfed or deleted, and we move on to something else. Then you cry about the new thing. Because your goal is 0% PvP in highsec, your goal is Trammel. How about we talk about ways that we can actually encourage conflict, instead of handcuffing it?
What's Trammel?
Low/nullsec is already gatecamps online, it's a fact that stargates are one of the only places to catch people in transit who aren't interested in fighting. Gatecamps in highsec are also far more avoidable, i.e. there are multiple routes into every hub and camping them all effectively would require some effort than just hanging out on the undock in an instaloki waiting for reds to appear on your overview. They are also far more vulnerable to ambushes and third party intervention than hub camps where the hordes of logi and vindis are just one click away.
My goal is not to remove Pvp from highsec; I have had some decent successes in highsec combat and I don't like the idea of entirely risk free space. But the current situation of 24/7 hub camping and baiting is boring and breeds stagnation; if those high SP, asset rich players had an incentive to move outside the 4-4 docking radius, or perhaps even jump out of the hub system a few times a week, you'd create a a situation where conflict was more likely because going after a gate camp or a roaming force is alot less suicidal than showing up on station to play Suddenly Nestors, or to watch the campers hide if they're outmatched.
When's the last time you undocked anyway? Why do you think incentivizing risk averse pvp is good for the game? |
Gilchrist Blackmoore
Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem.
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:01:33 -
[70] - Quote
I would limit alliance sizes to some small number of players, perhaps 50? Alliances are largely meaningless in low-sec, null-sec and wh's fleet fights anyhow and sov is being screwed over as it is so that can be adjusted to work with this. The big effect would be in hi-sec. This would make it impossible for any one alliance to be in all the trade hubs and main pipes in strength. Alliances in coalitions could still all war dec a common enemy but they would be far less likely to all wardec the same small newbie/weak corps at the same time.
This would have the effect of allowing the smaller and weaker corps to still fly around, visit trade hubs and just play the game while wardecced. They would still be in danger of being killed but if they are smart and carful it wouldn't mean having to shut down operations for a week which doesn't benefit them or the aggressor. It might even encourage the smaller guys to put up a fight as they would be more likely to bump into the big guys traveling around solo or in small gangs. And the big guys would be less coordinated as they would have to deal with more CEO's to get group wardecs issued and large fleets formed up.
It would also split up the stronger players into a larger number of alliances which would only encourage more participation as they would have to all individually try recruiting members to get up to their 50 max instead of flying around fat and bloated in a 200 man corp where members dropping and adding here are there are only trivial issues to them. And absentee toons would be kicked from corp to make room for active members since they are limited in size. This trimming of the fat will make these corps more likely to actually do stuff.
Just some thoughts I have on the matter. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12787
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:10:12 -
[71] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: When's the last time you undocked anyway? Why do you think incentivizing risk averse pvp is good for the game?
Can we knock this **** off already? You try flying a Sacrilege and a scout with a crying newborn on your lap, and tell me how well that works. My ass has been playing the market for the past few weeks, or I wouldn't play at all. Kiss off with that ad hominem bullshit, argue the point or don't even bother posting.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:20:26 -
[72] - Quote
Solonius Rex wrote:I think the corp system itself is broken.
First off, single-man corps should not exist. Corps should have a minimum number of people requirement, say around 20 people, and that if you are inactive in a corp for more than 3-4 months, CCP automatically drops you from that corp and places you back in the NPC corp. Corps that drop below the 20 man minimum, are given 24 hour notice before they are closed, and everyone is kicked.
Secondly, leaving a corp should have penalties. NPC corps should have higher tax rates, around 30%, and if you drop corp, you cannot join another corp for 1 week. This will prevent people from lightly hopping around corps, which i think is stupid.
Thirdly, friendly fire off should have penalties. Concord should charge your corp a premium for the ability to protect your members. This should come in the form of a minimum fee, plus taxes, that is charged to the corp. Once you stop paying, friendly fire turns back on again with a 24 hour notice.
With that in mind, any corp that is in a war, or gets wardecced, should be subject to stricter penalties if people wish to drop corp during wars.
We need to make corps meaningful in order to make wardecs meaningful.
I disagree about the solo corps going away, but would be fine with rules put in place to avoid the "stop, drop and roll" move. I have a good few characters, and I have one that I have zero interest in playing with others in my corporation and am clear about it and role play it as such.
Fully agree with having more meaningful corps but I shouldn't be forced to incorporate with anyone if I don't choose to either. Not for tax evasion purposes, either. I, for one, still think there is an amazing amount of content for the solo player or his small team under his control.
I find a lot more wrong with "hiding" in an npc corp than I do with solo corps that can still be wardecced. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2193
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 22:23:55 -
[73] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties.
Making it impossible to shoot a suspect while they're at a station won't make people shoot suspects more often. That logic is just totally faulty. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
840
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 10:55:51 -
[74] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:"I don't want to" , "I don't know how to" or "I'm not confident about my ability to win in that situation" would be adequate. But there's a prideful breed of carebear that don't want to make that kind of admission.
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. 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...
Ella's Snack bar
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
608
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 01:05:51 -
[75] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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? The second part of the post delves into that.
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.
march rabbit wrote:McChicken combo HalMayo wrote:March rabbit wrote: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". That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting. As i said right from the start: you are approaching the problem from PvP aggressor side. I'm presenting you with views from other side. If you don't care about it - Ok. Personally i would love new proposed system to have some meaning for everyone involved unlike things like bumping. That's why i'm posting here. And i haven't taken anything personal here. Thanks. Good discussion till now. Keep it going! I'm not approaching it from any one particular side really. Just depends which posts you've read. I don't have a dog in the fight so my posts on the topic have reached towards both ends of the argument.
The problem though starts with a very skewed risk reward balance. Take a look at two polarizing industrial corporations. The first corp has teeth... they are willing to take on more risk for more reward. The second group is toothless... the corp is essentially a chatroom with a recruitment ad. Where are the opportunities for the first corp? Why does their corp lack purpose in highsec? Why are they not rewarded for fighting during wars?
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2211
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:29:32 -
[76] - Quote
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. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23649
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:49:11 -
[77] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: - you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all? To be fair I believe that making PvE fits more like PvP fits is something that CCP have been working on for a while, the work they've been doing on the NPC AI is an example, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that tiericide is also a part of that plan.
Lyric Masters wrote: I disagree about the solo corps going away, but would be fine with rules put in place to avoid the "stop, drop and roll" move. I have a good few characters, and I have one that I have zero interest in playing with others in my corporation and am clear about it and role play it as such.
Fully agree with having more meaningful corps but I shouldn't be forced to incorporate with anyone if I don't choose to either. Not for tax evasion purposes, either. I, for one, still think there is an amazing amount of content for the solo player or his small team under his control.
I find a lot more wrong with "hiding" in an npc corp than I do with solo corps that can still be wardecced.
I'm totally with you on this, one man corps should still have a place, but the "stop drop and roll" tactic being being without consequence is ridiculous and open to abuse.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:56:18 -
[78] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties. Making it impossible to shoot a suspect while they're at a station won't make people shoot suspects more often. That logic is just totally faulty. What you're saying is that you won't shoot them while they're near a station because they aren't helpless enough and they're already at a huge mechanical disadvantage compare to the potential aggressors. People have been coming up with fictitious reasons justify not shooting people in highsec since forever. Here are some of my favorites: - There's no point trying to kill war targets because they'll just run away. - They always have dozens of neutral logistics. - There's always more of them nearby (even when there's literally only 1 person logged in). - Something something Station Games. - Something something Trade Hub Campers. You can be tackling someone in a belt in their home system while simultaneously their CEO explains to your spy alt in teamspeak that there's no point trying to fight you because you'll run away or that you're a trade hub camper who will just play station games. Those reasons people give aren't actually reasons, they're rhetoric and dogma that prideful people hide behind. "I don't want to" , "I don't know how to" or "I'm not confident about my ability to win in that situation" would be adequate. But there's a prideful breed of carebear that don't want to make that kind of admission.
All of those five "excuses" you listed are perfectly valid reasons not to feed effortless killmails to hub huggers. I have seen the neutral logi undock en masse, I have seen station campers dock up and log off when a real fleet wants to play, and adding Absolute Defiance to my contacts list shed new light on the composition of Dodixie local.
Force that kind of player to expend effort for kills and they will either go put in a minimum of effort to hunt targets or they will unsub. And anybody that unsubs because they can't play f1 monkey on the undock anymore is no loss to the game.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:58:44 -
[79] - Quote
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.
What kind of idiot takes a dessie against an RLML cruiser anyway? |
Valkin Mordirc
936
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:04:50 -
[80] - Quote
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.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
444
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:19:12 -
[81] - 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
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:46:45 -
[82] - Quote
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.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
444
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 04:55:54 -
[83] - 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
|
Julius Maagnus
The Clown Shoe Crew Absolute Defiance
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 06:00:32 -
[84] - Quote
I see some interesting ideas, and some stupid ones.
The only real way to fix the issue is to address what is really broken with the system. . Mercenary alliances wardec people because they are paid to, or they see you speak in local, or they see you in a shiny ship, or you log in. There are some interesting ideas in this thread to give a cause for war, however I dont see any feasibility in most of it. You know what wont fix the war mechanics?
* Banning neutral logi and making it a concord offense. - Typical crybaby carebear complaint. Reason? Neutral logistics is no different than in corp logistics, save the fact that anyone can engage them, not just the war targets. How about you stop crying about it, and deal with it like you would in any other fleet fight.
* Removing fighting from trade systems. - More crybaby carebear complaining. MOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN HIGHSEC STARTS IN A TRADE SYSTEM. Deal with it. Why wouldnt there be fighting there?
* Removing suspect gaming from stations. - Seriously? More carebear stuff.... if you dont like it, dont shoot them. Everyone does what they like to do.
Now lets assess what could perhaps fix the current situation with highsec wars. I think I have it figured out. Convince the highsec mercenary alliances to quit being so scared of eachother. The reason why you dont get the good fights that we were used to until 3 years ago is that all the merc groups except 2 that I know of are buddy buddy with each other. They surround themselves with this big blue doughnut. This allows them the same kind of controls on highsec warfare that gewnz have doing what they do in null. I bet some of the people reading this post have asked marmites to help them in a war with forsaken, or BAW, or PoH, etc.... and what were you told? No? Of course you were. Well, to be honest, I dont see any of them assisting against BAW, but the reason you dont get help with the others is they are scared. Period. (that and you arent forking over enough money) As a matter of fact, they are so scared of going to war with another merc organization that they have to pull 5 alliances together to wardec 1 mercenary alliance.
I suggest you find a way to fix those kinds of issues, and you might get content in quantity while playing in high security space. Mad props to the couple of mercenary groups who still operate on their own, and in their own capacity with no f**ks given.
If you frenchfry when you should pizza, you're going to have a bad time.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 07:30:26 -
[85] - Quote
Julius Maagnus wrote: I see some interesting ideas, and some stupid ones.
The only real way to fix the issue is to address what is really broken with the system. . Mercenary alliances wardec people because they are paid to, or they see you speak in local, or they see you in a shiny ship, or you log in. There are some interesting ideas in this thread to give a cause for war, however I dont see any feasibility in most of it. You know what wont fix the war mechanics?
* Banning neutral logi and making it a concord offense. - Typical crybaby carebear complaint. Reason? Neutral logistics is no different than in corp logistics, save the fact that anyone can engage them, not just the war targets. How about you stop crying about it, and deal with it like you would in any other fleet fight.
* Removing fighting from trade systems. - More crybaby carebear complaining. MOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN HIGHSEC STARTS IN A TRADE SYSTEM. Deal with it. Why wouldnt there be fighting there?
* Removing suspect gaming from stations. - Seriously? More carebear stuff.... if you dont like it, dont shoot them. Everyone does what they like to do.
Now lets assess what could perhaps fix the current situation with highsec wars. I think I have it figured out. Convince the highsec mercenary alliances to quit being so scared of eachother. The reason why you dont get the good fights that we were used to until 3 years ago is that all the merc groups except 2 that I know of are buddy buddy with each other. They surround themselves with this big blue doughnut. This allows them the same kind of controls on highsec warfare that gewnz have doing what they do in null. I bet some of the people reading this post have asked marmites to help them in a war with forsaken, or BAW, or PoH, etc.... and what were you told? No? Of course you were. Well, to be honest, I dont see any of them assisting against BAW, but the reason you dont get help with the others is they are scared. Period. (that and you arent forking over enough money) As a matter of fact, they are so scared of going to war with another merc organization that they have to pull 5 alliances together to wardec 1 mercenary alliance.
I suggest you find a way to fix those kinds of issues, and you might get content in quantity while playing in high security space. Mad props to the couple of mercenary groups who still operate on their own, and in their own capacity with no f**ks given.
It's the same throughout the game. If your goal is to minimize risk while still getting kills, it makes alot more sense for the smart, experienced players to band together and curbstomp the rest than to fight each other. Join the blob and conduct daily massacre of those who aren't in the blob = guaranteed content as long as the idiots keep undocking.
Of course I'm one of the idiots for repeatedly shooting at things without a couple of pet alts or corpmates for backup.
|
Valkin Mordirc
938
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 08:10:25 -
[86] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
It's the same throughout the game. If your goal is to minimize risk while still getting kills, it makes alot more sense for the smart, experienced players to band together and curbstomp the rest than to fight each other. Join the blob and conduct daily massacre of those who aren't in the blob = guaranteed content as long as the idiots keep undocking.
Of course I'm one of the idiots for repeatedly shooting at things without a couple of pet alts or corpmates for backup.
The main reason Merc alliance band togther they do currently is because War Fee's, even with contracts are rather expensive. When Deadly runs it's 250+ wars it's around 900$ if you were plex it all. That is ******* expensive for highsec.
So having multiple people donating to warfunds is extremely viable and easy to do. Hence the large merc alliance like Marmite, Absolute, and Forsaken.
And also as it turns out, just because people will do better grouped together, doesn't mean they will get along. Hence why they're are multiple large merc alliance roaming around highsec right now.
The cost to fund wars and how they currently function mechanically is the cause for this
And there's nothing wrong with make a fair fight unfair. If you gunna ***** about it, your playing the wrong game.
Stop derailing the thread with your own opinions, please.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
307
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 09:58:44 -
[87] - Quote
Julius Maagnus wrote: I see some interesting ideas, and some stupid ones.
The only real way to fix the issue is to address what is really broken with the system. . Mercenary alliances wardec people because they are paid to, or they see you speak in local, or they see you in a shiny ship, or you log in. There are some interesting ideas in this thread to give a cause for war, however I dont see any feasibility in most of it. You know what wont fix the war mechanics?
* Banning neutral logi and making it a concord offense. - Typical crybaby carebear complaint. Reason? Neutral logistics is no different than in corp logistics, save the fact that anyone can engage them, not just the war targets. How about you stop crying about it, and deal with it like you would in any other fleet fight.
* Removing fighting from trade systems. - More crybaby carebear complaining. MOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN HIGHSEC STARTS IN A TRADE SYSTEM. Deal with it. Why wouldnt there be fighting there?
* Removing suspect gaming from stations. - Seriously? More carebear stuff.... if you dont like it, dont shoot them. Everyone does what they like to do.
Now lets assess what could perhaps fix the current situation with highsec wars. I think I have it figured out. Convince the highsec mercenary alliances to quit being so scared of eachother. The reason why you dont get the good fights that we were used to until 3 years ago is that all the merc groups except 2 that I know of are buddy buddy with each other. They surround themselves with this big blue doughnut. This allows them the same kind of controls on highsec warfare that gewnz have doing what they do in null. I bet some of the people reading this post have asked marmites to help them in a war with forsaken, or BAW, or PoH, etc.... and what were you told? No? Of course you were. Well, to be honest, I dont see any of them assisting against BAW, but the reason you dont get help with the others is they are scared. Period. (that and you arent forking over enough money) As a matter of fact, they are so scared of going to war with another merc organization that they have to pull 5 alliances together to wardec 1 mercenary alliance.
I suggest you find a way to fix those kinds of issues, and you might get content in quantity while playing in high security space. Mad props to the couple of mercenary groups who still operate on their own, and in their own capacity with no f**ks given.
I don't completely disagree, but I disagree on a couple points which I think are important.
Allow me to expose them.
I think the reason it's hard to find a skilled shooter outside the merc organizations is because the crime watch system is so effective at preventing fights. I just think dabbling in PvP to learn is much more inconvenient than it used to be. The end result: newer players are doing it less.
I've was in the Orphanage back before Marmite and I also fought against the Orphanage. If that qualifies me to talk about merc v merc, here are my thoughts: fighting mercs is hard, you lose ships, your killboard(which is the only thing making the iskies roll in) suffers, and most of the time you don't get paid crap for it.
Also, note to the public: here is how you clear all those sensor boosted war targets off Jita:
Go get a macharial and fit it for alpha shooting. Then sensor boost/tracking enhance the **** out of it.
Use an alt or a buddy to set up some straight line bookmarks where the first is in dead space, the second is 70k off Jita camp, and the third is straight ahead in dead space again.
Never use the same bookmark on Jita grid twice.
Then you warp from the first point to the second, land/target lock/kill one target, and Instawarp to the third point. Congratulations for self whoring a km against a substantial fleet.
Be sure to have your alt hugging the target so you get his loots and dock up.
Mo
I would like to apply to be called the Star of Perkone. Does anyone know with whom I should speak?
|
Sol epoch
HELVEGEN Absolute Defiance
179
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 16:18:39 -
[88] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote:Julius Maagnus wrote: I see some interesting ideas, and some stupid ones.
The only real way to fix the issue is to address what is really broken with the system. . Mercenary alliances wardec people because they are paid to, or they see you speak in local, or they see you in a shiny ship, or you log in. There are some interesting ideas in this thread to give a cause for war, however I dont see any feasibility in most of it. You know what wont fix the war mechanics?
* Banning neutral logi and making it a concord offense. - Typical crybaby carebear complaint. Reason? Neutral logistics is no different than in corp logistics, save the fact that anyone can engage them, not just the war targets. How about you stop crying about it, and deal with it like you would in any other fleet fight.
* Removing fighting from trade systems. - More crybaby carebear complaining. MOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN HIGHSEC STARTS IN A TRADE SYSTEM. Deal with it. Why wouldnt there be fighting there?
* Removing suspect gaming from stations. - Seriously? More carebear stuff.... if you dont like it, dont shoot them. Everyone does what they like to do.
Now lets assess what could perhaps fix the current situation with highsec wars. I think I have it figured out. Convince the highsec mercenary alliances to quit being so scared of eachother. The reason why you dont get the good fights that we were used to until 3 years ago is that all the merc groups except 2 that I know of are buddy buddy with each other. They surround themselves with this big blue doughnut. This allows them the same kind of controls on highsec warfare that gewnz have doing what they do in null. I bet some of the people reading this post have asked marmites to help them in a war with forsaken, or BAW, or PoH, etc.... and what were you told? No? Of course you were. Well, to be honest, I dont see any of them assisting against BAW, but the reason you dont get help with the others is they are scared. Period. (that and you arent forking over enough money) As a matter of fact, they are so scared of going to war with another merc organization that they have to pull 5 alliances together to wardec 1 mercenary alliance.
I suggest you find a way to fix those kinds of issues, and you might get content in quantity while playing in high security space. Mad props to the couple of mercenary groups who still operate on their own, and in their own capacity with no f**ks given. I don't completely disagree, but I disagree on a couple points which I think are important. Allow me to expose them. I think the reason it's hard to find a skilled shooter outside the merc organizations is because the crime watch system is so effective at preventing fights. I just think dabbling in PvP to learn is much more inconvenient than it used to be. The end result: newer players are doing it less. I've was in the Orphanage back before Marmite and I also fought against the Orphanage. If that qualifies me to talk about merc v merc, here are my thoughts: fighting mercs is hard, you lose ships, your killboard(which is the only thing making the iskies roll in) suffers, and most of the time you don't get paid crap for it. There is also the problem that merc players get to know each other over time. Most of us kind of like the same things and get on pretty well (minus a little drama). Wars are less fun when they're against your friends. Also, note to the public: here is how you clear all those sensor boosted war targets off Jita: Go get a macharial and fit it for alpha shooting. Then sensor boost/tracking enhance the **** out of it. Use an alt or a buddy to set up some straight line bookmarks where the first is in dead space, the second is 70k off Jita camp, and the third is straight ahead in dead space again. Never use the same bookmark on Jita grid twice. Then you warp from the first point to the second, land/target lock/kill one target, and Instawarp to the third point. Congratulations for self whoring a km against a substantial fleet. Be sure to have your alt hugging the target so you get his loots and dock up. Mo I would like to apply to be called the Star of Perkone. Does anyone know with whom I should speak?
An alt giving advice is like a 5 dollar ***** giving you head, once given it is forgotten.
|
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
311
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 16:59:57 -
[89] - Quote
Sol epoch wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote:Julius Maagnus wrote: I see some interesting ideas, and some stupid ones.
The only real way to fix the issue is to address what is really broken with the system. . Mercenary alliances wardec people because they are paid to, or they see you speak in local, or they see you in a shiny ship, or you log in. There are some interesting ideas in this thread to give a cause for war, however I dont see any feasibility in most of it. You know what wont fix the war mechanics?
* Banning neutral logi and making it a concord offense. - Typical crybaby carebear complaint. Reason? Neutral logistics is no different than in corp logistics, save the fact that anyone can engage them, not just the war targets. How about you stop crying about it, and deal with it like you would in any other fleet fight.
* Removing fighting from trade systems. - More crybaby carebear complaining. MOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN HIGHSEC STARTS IN A TRADE SYSTEM. Deal with it. Why wouldnt there be fighting there?
* Removing suspect gaming from stations. - Seriously? More carebear stuff.... if you dont like it, dont shoot them. Everyone does what they like to do.
Now lets assess what could perhaps fix the current situation with highsec wars. I think I have it figured out. Convince the highsec mercenary alliances to quit being so scared of eachother. The reason why you dont get the good fights that we were used to until 3 years ago is that all the merc groups except 2 that I know of are buddy buddy with each other. They surround themselves with this big blue doughnut. This allows them the same kind of controls on highsec warfare that gewnz have doing what they do in null. I bet some of the people reading this post have asked marmites to help them in a war with forsaken, or BAW, or PoH, etc.... and what were you told? No? Of course you were. Well, to be honest, I dont see any of them assisting against BAW, but the reason you dont get help with the others is they are scared. Period. (that and you arent forking over enough money) As a matter of fact, they are so scared of going to war with another merc organization that they have to pull 5 alliances together to wardec 1 mercenary alliance.
I suggest you find a way to fix those kinds of issues, and you might get content in quantity while playing in high security space. Mad props to the couple of mercenary groups who still operate on their own, and in their own capacity with no f**ks given. I don't completely disagree, but I disagree on a couple points which I think are important. Allow me to expose them. I think the reason it's hard to find a skilled shooter outside the merc organizations is because the crime watch system is so effective at preventing fights. I just think dabbling in PvP to learn is much more inconvenient than it used to be. The end result: newer players are doing it less. I've was in the Orphanage back before Marmite and I also fought against the Orphanage. If that qualifies me to talk about merc v merc, here are my thoughts: fighting mercs is hard, you lose ships, your killboard(which is the only thing making the iskies roll in) suffers, and most of the time you don't get paid crap for it. There is also the problem that merc players get to know each other over time. Most of us kind of like the same things and get on pretty well (minus a little drama). Wars are less fun when they're against your friends. Also, note to the public: here is how you clear all those sensor boosted war targets off Jita: Go get a macharial and fit it for alpha shooting. Then sensor boost/tracking enhance the **** out of it. Use an alt or a buddy to set up some straight line bookmarks where the first is in dead space, the second is 70k off Jita camp, and the third is straight ahead in dead space again. Never use the same bookmark on Jita grid twice. Then you warp from the first point to the second, land/target lock/kill one target, and Instawarp to the third point. Congratulations for self whoring a km against a substantial fleet. Be sure to have your alt hugging the target so you get his loots and dock up. Mo I would like to apply to be called the Star of Perkone. Does anyone know with whom I should speak? An alt giving advice is like a 5 dollar ***** giving you head, once given it is forgotten.
Confirming, I am an alt of Nitsche |
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 17:12:32 -
[90] - 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.
What is all this nonsense I keep seeing about "fair fights?"
If I'm trying to kill you, I am doing it in a way to where I am going to have the advantage and win the fight. This isn't WOW, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Your quote about the "dunking of DF in Dodixie" -- so, they got together in a group of their friends, and this is bad? It doesn't sound bad to me, it sounds like the people being attacked needed to gather as many friends as the other side.
Regardless, I'm not trying to go off on a tangent. Of course, highsec wars could be improved, but by making this Hello Kitty Adventure World were everything is fair for people IS NOT EVE. If there's a fair fight in EVE, odds are both sides of the fight screwed up.
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2213
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 17:39:36 -
[91] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote:I think the reason it's hard to find a skilled shooter outside the merc organizations is because the crime watch system is so effective at preventing fights. I just think dabbling in PvP to learn is much more inconvenient than it used to be. The end result: newer players are doing it less.
I think people that don't interact with crimewatch very often and weren't around before it existed don't really appreciate how badly crimewatch has affected highsec PVP in general. I feel that the elimination of canflipping in particular was hugely detrimental since it totally eliminated one of the easiest ways for a new player to experience PVP in a way where the newbie himself has some control over who can shoot at him.
That's not to mention the unreasonably short duration of limited engagement timers, which leads to situations where people who want to fight each other and who had been fighting each other only a few minutes earlier suddenly become totally unable to re-engage.
But from its inception crimewatch wasn't designed with gameplay in mind. CCP Greyscale was openly disdainful of highsec PVP gameplay. Not just aggressors in highsec PVP situations, but of PVP in highsec period. Subsequently he created a system without any regard for the resultant gameplay, as was painfully apparent during its development.
The result is a terrible system that leaves no openings for new players and ends most fights before they happen. |
Julius Maagnus
The Clown Shoe Crew Absolute Defiance
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 18:44:28 -
[92] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote:I think the reason it's hard to find a skilled shooter outside the merc organizations is because the crime watch system is so effective at preventing fights. I just think dabbling in PvP to learn is much more inconvenient than it used to be. The end result: newer players are doing it less. I think people that don't interact with crimewatch very often and weren't around before it existed don't really appreciate how badly crimewatch has affected highsec PVP in general. I feel that the elimination of canflipping in particular was hugely detrimental since it totally eliminated one of the easiest ways for a new player to experience PVP in a way where the newbie himself has some control over who can shoot at him. That's not to mention the unreasonably short duration of limited engagement timers, which leads to situations where people who want to fight each other and who had been fighting each other only a few minutes earlier suddenly become totally unable to re-engage. But from its inception crimewatch wasn't designed with gameplay in mind. CCP Greyscale was openly disdainful of highsec PVP gameplay. Not just aggressors in highsec PVP situations, but of PVP in highsec period. Subsequently he created a system without any regard for the resultant gameplay, as was painfully apparent during its development. The result is a terrible system that leaves no openings for new players and ends most fights before they happen.
I cannot argue with anything you say here. I agree.
If you frenchfry when you should pizza, you're going to have a bad time.
|
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 20:08:28 -
[93] - Quote
Not sure if the OP wants my perspective, as this is an alt.
However, I don't think anything can be done to change the wardec mechanisms, or even the general HiSec PvP RoE, to improve the current situation with wardecs and a lack of willingness on part of many players to defend when war is declared.
The core problem is not rooted in the current game mechanics, but are in my view due to sort of a 'meta' problem transcending actual game mechanics. The longer explanation has been discused many times before, so I won't bring up the details unless people won't mind hearing them (again).
But the tl;dr: is that the premise of EvE as a permanently cold, dark, harsh HTFUniverse may be fundamentally broken due to factors outside New Eden.
Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2216
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 20:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
There is, most certainly a tend in the MMO community towards spoon feeding people content and telling everyone they're a magical legendary hero in an environment where everyone else is the same magical legendary hero.
I personally don't understand it. If I wanted that kind of power fantasy I'd be playing a single player game. The entire point of EVE is that you are what you make yourself into.
I'm a high price thug for hire for instance. And it's not just a quest line that makes me that, people actually pay me money to do violence to other players.
Subsequently when some carebear says it should be impossible for me to do that because he wants to be able to pretend to be a super special snowflake space captain by leveling his raven undisturbed by other players in the same seamless, single shard universe as him it upsets and confuses me quite a lot. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12793
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 21:39:28 -
[95] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: I think people that don't interact with crimewatch very often and weren't around before it existed don't really appreciate how badly crimewatch has affected highsec PVP in general.
Bingo. You want to know why merc groups and gankers behave the way they do? Because of the years and years of punitive, heavy handed safety mechanics they have to deal with just to play their game at all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2217
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 21:51:10 -
[96] - Quote
I'd say that the carebears made their bed and now they have to lie in it. However we also have to lie in it and I'd really prefer not to. I'd also prefer for them to not continue to make it worse. |
Vhelnik Cojoin
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 21:54:17 -
[97] - Quote
Vimsy,
Those situations are not what I am getting at. There are two separate issues, which tend to reinforce one another. One is specific to EvE, the other isn't.
The first issue is how people approach playing games, and I am no referring to what we in EvE consider playstyles (PvP, PvE, etc.) Many people, when they are playing games, are not in a position, where they can give the game 100% of their attention. I'm not talking about being AFK, but perhaps there are people around the player in meatspace, who may need some attention as well.
I at least cannot work effectively in any kind of PvP scenario, if I cannot give the game my full attention. And by effectively I mean that I won't have a high risk of loosing my ships due to apparent silly mistakes, get caught during a wardec while doing PvE etc.
Have a look of some of kil2 / CCP Rise' small gang PvP videos, which he made before he started working for CCP. He literally sits completely alone in what appears to be an attick room, wearing a headset with boom mike and all the while being completely transfixed by the monitor. Try doing this with your family around, it won't fly very often.
Curiously we just heard one example of this in this thread from a CODE. member, who cannot play PvP effectively due to having to look after a small child in meatspace.
Over time I have met *many* players i EvE, for whom this is a problem for one reason or another. This to a point, where people give up on PvE activities in null/low/WH space. There are a *lot* of nullsec/WH 'refugees' in HiSec.
I used to live in null, and never lost a ratting ship and it wasn't for lack of opportunity. Also I am fairly confident I could successfully run missions during a live wardec with Marmites and their colleagues, assuing I could fully concentrate on the game while doing so. Yet with the many hours I spend in EvE, I had to split my game time between PvE and PvP. Otherwise I would end up in serious trouble with people in meatspace.
This is the reason why for instance trying to tweak the profitability of HiSec/NPC corp member activities is pointless. It won't change anything, because to many 'good' HiSec players it is not a question of the ISK/risk ratio of a given activity, as some seem to believe. CCP has tried to move the population out of HiSec by tweaking the payout of especially mining and mission running. Nothing moved in the relative population densities.
If I log in with a mind to do some PvE, and find myself forced to go do X in a PvP scenario, before I can do PvE (at higher payout), then I will just log out again. Because trying for instance to keep up with dscan every 2-3 seconds is frequently not compatible with being on a friendly footing with my surroundings.
I will post the second reason tomorrow, and that one is perhaps even worse than this one.
Have you Communicated with your fellow capsuleers today? It is good for the EvE-oconomy and o-kay for you.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2219
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 22:16:11 -
[98] - Quote
All kinds of groups have people with those concerns in them. They always have done. That has absolutely no bearing on the current state of play in highsec. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12793
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 22:16:51 -
[99] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote: Curiously we just heard one example of this in this thread from a CODE. member, who cannot play PvP effectively due to having to look after a small child in meatspace.
Eh, kinda. More like when my wife was recovering and I became the primary caregiver, it was impossible to play just about anything, because I had the newborn baby literally all the time.
It wasn't just EVE, and it wasn't just PvP, I could not do anything except type on my phone or play a game that you can play with just the mouse hand. Ended up buying one of those carriers so I could hold his little ass on my chest so that I could cook. Dominos gets tiresome after a week.
Quote:Also I am fairly confident I could successfully run missions during a live wardec with Marmites and their colleagues, assuming I could fully concentrate on the game while doing so.
I can and have done this.
I think the failure on your part is the assumption that people who find themselves in a scenario where they can't guarantee lack of distractions will default to PvE activity. I damn sure did not, I'd almost rather not play the game at all, and I doubt I'm alone in that regard.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
451
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 01:00:02 -
[100] - 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
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2221
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 01:36:28 -
[101] - Quote
The sound of "Oh **** gotta go don't let me die" accompanied by the sound of crying children/hysterical wife/barfing dog in the background is something everyone has head on teamspeak. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12794
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 01:48:45 -
[102] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The sound of "Oh **** gotta go don't let me die" accompanied by the sound of crying children/hysterical wife/barfing dog in the background is something everyone has head on teamspeak.
A choice selection of examples I have heard:
"Be right back, my goddamned dog is on fire!"
"Gotta go, cops again"
"Oh ****, I forgot about the fire drill!"
*In the background* "Steve, if you don't get off that goddamned Playstation I am going to chop off your **** and feed it to you!"
Or the ever hilarious spectacle of someone who is playing the game in a two person dorm room in college, and his room mate is loudly and busily engaged in amorous activity with the newest random girl.
[edit: Anyway, we should get back on topic, since the OP is about wars, and EVE's combat requiring attention to be paid to it is most certainly not the problem.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 03:08:25 -
[103] - Quote
Vhelnik Cojoin wrote:Vimsy,
Those situations are not what I am getting at. There are two separate issues, which tend to reinforce one another. One is specific to EvE, the other isn't.
The first issue is how people approach playing games, and I am no referring to what we in EvE consider playstyles (PvP, PvE, etc.) Many people, when they are playing games, are not in a position, where they can give the game 100% of their attention. I'm not talking about being AFK, but perhaps there are people around the player in meatspace, who may need some attention as well.
I at least cannot work effectively in any kind of PvP scenario, if I cannot give the game my full attention. And by effectively I mean that I won't have a high risk of loosing my ships due to apparent silly mistakes, get caught during a wardec while doing PvE etc.
Have a look of some of kil2 / CCP Rise' small gang PvP videos, which he made before he started working for CCP. He literally sits completely alone in what appears to be an attick room, wearing a headset with boom mike and all the while being completely transfixed by the monitor. Try doing this with your family around, it won't fly very often.
Curiously we just heard one example of this in this thread from a CODE. member, who cannot play PvP effectively due to having to look after a small child in meatspace.
Over time I have met *many* players i EvE, for whom this is a problem for one reason or another. This to a point, where people give up on PvE activities in null/low/WH space. There are a *lot* of nullsec/WH 'refugees' in HiSec.
I used to live in null, and never lost a ratting ship and it wasn't for lack of opportunity. Also I am fairly confident I could successfully run missions during a live wardec with Marmites and their colleagues, assuming I could fully concentrate on the game while doing so. Yet with the many hours I spend in EvE, I had to split my game time between PvE and PvP. Otherwise I would end up in serious trouble with people in meatspace.
This is the reason why for instance trying to tweak the profitability of HiSec/NPC corp member activities is pointless. It won't change anything, because to many 'good' HiSec players it is not a question of the ISK/risk ratio of a given activity, as some seem to believe. CCP has tried to move the population out of HiSec by tweaking the payout of especially mining and mission running. Nothing moved in the relative population densities.
If I log in with a mind to do some PvE, and find myself forced to go do X in a PvP scenario, before I can do PvE (at higher payout), then I will just log out again. Because trying for instance to keep up with dscan every 2-3 seconds is frequently not compatible with being on a friendly footing with my surroundings.
I will post the second reason tomorrow, and that one is perhaps even worse than this one.
This, and more. Alot of people in this sub seem to want to balance the game for players with ~5-10 alts and multiple screens/accounts. This has nothing to do with being "good" at the game. It simply has to do with being willing and able to devote an inordinate amount of time and real world money to the game.
The meta-game is all about alts. Yea, it's hard and dark and scary for the true solo player, but when you can immediately bring logi/ewar/extra DPS on grid while your links are running at a safe and you don't have to rely on relationships with real human players to do any of this, that's a huge advantage. No amount of "friendship" or corp support can match the effectiveness of having an entire gang on-call 24/7.
To be truly competitive at this game you have to invest in the game of alts meta. And if that isn't pay to win, I don't really know what else to call it.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12796
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 03:18:46 -
[104] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:It simply has to do with being willing and able to devote an inordinate amount of time and real world money to the game.
First you were yammering on about skillpoints, now you're claiming pay to win?
Gtfo.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Aoife Fraoch
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
41
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 07:47:33 -
[105] - Quote
One thing that I find interesting in this discussion whenever it turns up is the focus on punitive measures to shape user behaviour. Such as increasing NPC corp tax, or have wars follow users, and so on. The problem is that this approach has never worked. Never. Worked. They either have no impact or simply result in the users coming up with a creative solution undermining the intended effect
A few examples that I remember are: - Move level 5 missions to low sec to get more people in low sec (...so everyone does lvl4 or incursions) - Remove insurance from concord kills to mitigate ganking (...which was compesated for from other sources) - Increase NPC corp tax to get more people into corps (...and it did, one person corps)
At the core of this or any other discussion about getting people to do something they would not have chosen to otherwise is that ultimately EVE is a game. The user can always not log in.
And this is the problem with war decs. Most of the punitive measures proposed to get players to play with other players ignore EVEs history of success in getting people to do something they don't want to and ignore the fact that if all else fails, they can just do something else. Because this is EVE this also includes station trading, playing on an alt or just sitting cloaked in local all day while they are at work.
With this in mind and starting from the premise that you can not force people to do anything in a game, because they can always just log off, here are my own thoughts. Mostly they are about incentives.
Player structures. This has been mentioned by a few people already and frankly it is a good idea. Personally I would have these accrue benefit over time. Also maybe it is worth stealing gated plexes from FW? If a corp wants to set up a structure but doesn't feel they are that hardcore yet, maybe they can chose a small on gated for just frigates?
Also have corps gradually drop from a concord imposed tax of 10% over time (maybe 3 moonths?) would discourage flipping, though I suspect instead you will just have people moving to another corp they are holding on an alt instead.
Making this an arguement based on what people 'should' do and then try to come up with ways to force them really isn't getting anywhere. Its probably better to think of it as a case of making it something they want to do. It won't turn every high sec corp into a PVP powerhouse, but more of them might try than before.
EDIT: The reason to gate the structures would be to let the corp choose it's level of risk. They might be ok with burning through some frigates to defend something if they believe the fight might be a little fairer. And keeping the structure inplace might be reason enough to still be at risk in the rest of space. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
256
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 09:17:26 -
[106] - Quote
Aoife Fraoch wrote:One thing that I find interesting in this discussion whenever it turns up is the focus on punitive measures to shape user behaviour. Such as increasing NPC corp tax, or have wars follow users, and so on. The problem is that this approach has never worked. Never. Worked. They either have no impact or simply result in the users coming up with a creative solution undermining the intended effect
A few examples that I remember are: - Move level 5 missions to low sec to get more people in low sec (...so everyone does lvl4 or incursions) - Remove insurance from concord kills to mitigate ganking (...which was compesated for from other sources) - Increase NPC corp tax to get more people into corps (...and it did, one person corps)
At the core of this or any other discussion about getting people to do something they would not have chosen to otherwise is that ultimately EVE is a game. The user can always not log in.
And this is the problem with war decs. Most of the punitive measures proposed to get players to play with other players ignore EVEs history of success in getting people to do something they don't want to and ignore the fact that if all else fails, they can just do something else. Because this is EVE this also includes station trading, playing on an alt or just sitting cloaked in local all day while they are at work.
With this in mind and starting from the premise that you can not force people to do anything in a game, because they can always just log off, here are my own thoughts. Mostly they are about incentives.
Player structures. This has been mentioned by a few people already and frankly it is a good idea. Personally I would have these accrue benefit over time. Also maybe it is worth stealing gated plexes from FW? If a corp wants to set up a structure but doesn't feel they are that hardcore yet, maybe they can chose a small on gated for just frigates?
Also have corps gradually drop from a concord imposed tax of 10% over time (maybe 3 moonths?) would discourage flipping, though I suspect instead you will just have people moving to another corp they are holding on an alt instead.
Making this an arguement based on what people 'should' do and then try to come up with ways to force them really isn't getting anywhere. Its probably better to think of it as a case of making it something they want to do. It won't turn every high sec corp into a PVP powerhouse, but more of them might try than before.
EDIT: The reason to gate the structures would be to let the corp choose it's level of risk. They might be ok with burning through some frigates to defend something if they believe the fight might be a little fairer. And keeping the structure inplace might be reason enough to still be at risk in the rest of space.
Do highsec mercs even train frigates to V?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12796
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 09:30:54 -
[107] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Do highsec mercs even train frigates to V?
Yes, of course, but shouldn't you be crying about how the skillpoint system is fundamentally unfair or something?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
314
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 10:19:36 -
[108] - Quote
What if we dumped these crime watch rules so noobs could more easily dabble in PVP.
Let flippers go to noob training systems and expose newbros to fighting. Casual pvp exposes people to mechanics and tactics.
Then perhaps warfare wouldn't feel like such a rude wake up. Part of the problem is that the mercs are the only ones who have any idea how to fight.
Everyone else in high sec has no simple and controllable way to ry a few fights. I know someone is going to say "duels". Go ahead...
As long as high sec pvp is so hard to experience, the majority of Eve (who are in high sec) is going to view pvp as though it's not a legitimate part of the game. They'll just continue destroying rocks and the market.
Let them try to kill a flipper now and then... Most carebears in high sec would try that once in a while for a laugh, right?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
841
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 10:27:33 -
[109] - Quote
Aoife Fraoch wrote:One thing that I find interesting in this discussion whenever it turns up is the focus on punitive measures to shape user behaviour. Such as increasing NPC corp tax, or have wars follow users, and so on. The problem is that this approach has never worked. Never. Worked. They either have no impact or simply result in the users coming up with a creative solution undermining the intended effect
A few examples that I remember are: - Move level 5 missions to low sec to get more people in low sec (...so everyone does lvl4 or incursions) - Remove insurance from concord kills to mitigate ganking (...which was compesated for from other sources) - Increase NPC corp tax to get more people into corps (...and it did, one person corps)
At the core of this or any other discussion about getting people to do something they would not have chosen to otherwise is that ultimately EVE is a game. The user can always not log in.
And this is the problem with war decs. Most of the punitive measures proposed to get players to play with other players ignore EVEs history of success in getting people to do something they don't want to and ignore the fact that if all else fails, they can just do something else. Because this is EVE this also includes station trading, playing on an alt or just sitting cloaked in local all day while they are at work.
With this in mind and starting from the premise that you can not force people to do anything in a game, because they can always just log off, here are my own thoughts. Mostly they are about incentives.
Player structures. This has been mentioned by a few people already and frankly it is a good idea. Personally I would have these accrue benefit over time. Also maybe it is worth stealing gated plexes from FW? If a corp wants to set up a structure but doesn't feel they are that hardcore yet, maybe they can chose a small on gated for just frigates?
Also have corps gradually drop from a concord imposed tax of 10% over time (maybe 3 moonths?) would discourage flipping, though I suspect instead you will just have people moving to another corp they are holding on an alt instead.
Making this an arguement based on what people 'should' do and then try to come up with ways to force them really isn't getting anywhere. Its probably better to think of it as a case of making it something they want to do. It won't turn every high sec corp into a PVP powerhouse, but more of them might try than before.
EDIT: The reason to gate the structures would be to let the corp choose it's level of risk. They might be ok with burning through some frigates to defend something if they believe the fight might be a little fairer. And keeping the structure inplace might be reason enough to still be at risk in the rest of space.
You certainly understand the issue, respect to you for that post.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 19:30:06 -
[110] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This, and more. Alot of people in this sub seem to want to balance the game for players with ~5-10 alts and multiple screens/accounts. This has nothing to do with being "good" at the game. It simply has to do with being willing and able to devote an inordinate amount of time and real world money to the game.
The meta-game is all about alts. Yea, it's hard and dark and scary for the true solo player, but when you can immediately bring logi/ewar/extra DPS on grid while your links are running at a safe and you don't have to rely on relationships with real human players to do any of this, that's a huge advantage. No amount of "friendship" or corp support can match the effectiveness of having an entire gang on-call 24/7.
To be truly competitive at this game you have to invest in the game of alts meta. And if that isn't pay to win, I don't really know what else to call it.
First, a bit of background. I just recently returned to the game and rerolled my setup completely upon my return after a 3.5 year hiatus.
Point A. Playing multiple accounts at the same time, whether it be the alt-tab method on one screen, or having an elite hardware setup with however many monitors you want, IS DIFFICULT, if you are not using methods that are outside of the EULA. For the longest time, I played multiple accounts on one large display (56" tv connected thru HDMi, love it.) I've only recently started using my laptop display as well to have two characters visible at the same time always. It definitely ramps up the difficulty. Regardless, please tell me any multiplayer game of any note where there can be hardware differences between the players and the player with the better hardware wouldn't have at least a slight advantage to start strictly because of said hardware?
Point B. Yes, people have alts, and sometimes a lot of them. I'm sorry, but if you can't afford to keep at least two accounts open in a game where you are able to pay your subscription in in-game credits, then having to play solo in EVE is probably the least of your problems and I recommend you contact your local social services office tomorrow as soon as they open, as this was posted on a Sunday.
C. I know great players who have many alts, and I know great players, some who you would most likely call "dominant" who have never logged in on another eveguy in their entire career in New Eden.
I feel more than qualified to respond to your post as I was a very solid player in the past, and have experienced the "new player experience" just in the past few months. At no time did I ever feel I NEEDED the alternate eveguys I have, I got them to do things quicker and more efficiently. I believe the game is far more balanced than it was before my hiatus, and was actually very pleasantly surprised by the strides the game made as a whole. Sure, I was disappointed in nerfs such as the Crimewatch silliness -- but as a whole it still feels like I feel it should. Eveguys who have been training for years should and do have distinct advantages overall, but it remains the same that I can still specialize my training to be on the level with that 10-year player in a certain area in a relatively short time. I could have very easily purchased a new Eveguy from the Bazaar, but didn't choose that route. It's still EVE, it is supposed to be challenging.
Only four letters left to say to you after your performance in this thread:
H.T.F.U. |
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 03:23:14 -
[111] - Quote
Now people are done explaining how they feel that their child crying and other people having more free time and disposable income than them is somehow related to game balance can we continue?
I think it's pertinent to mention that post-inferno alliances lost quite a lot of value for both aggressors and defenders in wars.
Prior to being inferno being in a corporation as an aggressor meant you were limited to 3 wars and you had to pass a corporate vote prior to declaring war, but wars against other corporations were cheap (2 million isk). Alliances could declare unlimited wars and declare war without a vote but always had to pay 50 million as their base fee.
As an aggressor being a small group had benefits, as a defender being a member of an alliance had its benefits.
Presently there's no benefit to being in a small group as an aggressor because you have to pay just as much as the members of a 300 man alliance. As a defender you gain no benefit from being part of a large highsec alliance because the little guys that your alliance membership may have shielded you from before are not just line members of a large mercenary alliance.
Essentially the defenders have lost an incentive to be part of an alliance and the aggressors lost all incentive to not be part of an alliance. Subsequently we end up with the shift that we've seen from there regularly being 150-300 man general purpose highsec alliances to there instead being 150-300 man merc alliances. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 04:35:48 -
[112] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Do highsec mercs even train frigates to V?
Yes, of course, but shouldn't you be crying about how the skillpoint system is fundamentally unfair or something?
I never said it was unfair, I just take issue with people who fail to even consider SP disparity as a factor in combat.
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1435
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 05:02:58 -
[113] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Do highsec mercs even train frigates to V?
Yes, of course, but shouldn't you be crying about how the skillpoint system is fundamentally unfair or something? I never said it was unfair, I just take issue with people who fail to even consider SP disparity as a factor in combat.
Eat dust buddy, you'll never catch me with my Frigates at lvl VII
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
260
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:18:02 -
[114] - Quote
Lyric Masters wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This, and more. Alot of people in this sub seem to want to balance the game for players with ~5-10 alts and multiple screens/accounts. This has nothing to do with being "good" at the game. It simply has to do with being willing and able to devote an inordinate amount of time and real world money to the game.
The meta-game is all about alts. Yea, it's hard and dark and scary for the true solo player, but when you can immediately bring logi/ewar/extra DPS on grid while your links are running at a safe and you don't have to rely on relationships with real human players to do any of this, that's a huge advantage. No amount of "friendship" or corp support can match the effectiveness of having an entire gang on-call 24/7.
To be truly competitive at this game you have to invest in the game of alts meta. And if that isn't pay to win, I don't really know what else to call it.
First, a bit of background. I just recently returned to the game and rerolled my setup completely upon my return after a 3.5 year hiatus. Point A. Playing multiple accounts at the same time, whether it be the alt-tab method on one screen, or having an elite hardware setup with however many monitors you want, IS DIFFICULT, if you are not using methods that are outside of the EULA. For the longest time, I played multiple accounts on one large display (56" tv connected thru HDMi, love it.) I've only recently started using my laptop display as well to have two characters visible at the same time always. It definitely ramps up the difficulty. Regardless, please tell me any multiplayer game of any note where there can be hardware differences between the players and the player with the better hardware wouldn't have at least a slight advantage to start strictly because of said hardware? Point B. Yes, people have alts, and sometimes a lot of them. I'm sorry, but if you can't afford to keep at least two accounts open in a game where you are able to pay your subscription in in-game credits, then having to play solo in EVE is probably the least of your problems and I recommend you contact your local social services office tomorrow as soon as they open, as this was posted on a Sunday. C. I know great players who have many alts, and I know great players, some who you would most likely call "dominant" who have never logged in on another eveguy in their entire career in New Eden. I feel more than qualified to respond to your post as I was a very solid player in the past, and have experienced the "new player experience" just in the past few months. At no time did I ever feel I NEEDED the alternate eveguys I have, I got them to do things quicker and more efficiently. I believe the game is far more balanced than it was before my hiatus, and was actually very pleasantly surprised by the strides the game made as a whole. Sure, I was disappointed in nerfs such as the Crimewatch silliness -- but as a whole it still feels like I feel it should. Eveguys who have been training for years should and do have distinct advantages overall, but it remains the same that I can still specialize my training to be on the level with that 10-year player in a certain area in a relatively short time. I could have very easily purchased a new Eveguy from the Bazaar, but didn't choose that route. It's still EVE, it is supposed to be challenging. Only four letters left to say to you after your performance in this thread: H.T.F.U.
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.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
469
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:34:00 -
[115] - 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
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
260
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:53:38 -
[116] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas 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. 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.
[/quote]
I'm just being realistic. Every week there's a thread here by highsec pvp enthusiasts moaning about how the carebears won't fight them.
Well, they get curbstomped every time through mechanics they don't understand by people who have been playing for 10 years.
No amount of incentives tinkering is going to change that. It's a game, people don't have to play it. If you try to force them to play your way in an arena where you have a pretty substantial advantage, they'll just leave. It's just like talking to a brick wall.
Fighting mercs in highsec is generally not fun, for a host of aforementioned reasons. If you try to structure things so that people have no choice but to fight you, you're not gonna get the result you want I'm afraid.
I don't see how you fix wars when any attempt to take the fight to the aggressor ultimately devolves into a shitstorm of docking games and most people don't have an interest in that kind of fight.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
470
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 07:58:53 -
[117] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: fixed
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:41:27 -
[118] - 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.
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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
486
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:56:36 -
[119] - 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
|
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 17:57:08 -
[120] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I'm just being realistic. Every week there's a thread here by highsec pvp enthusiasts moaning about how the carebears won't fight them.
Well, they get curbstomped every time through mechanics they don't understand by people who have been playing for 10 years.
No amount of incentives tinkering is going to change that. It's a game, people don't have to play it. If you try to force them to play your way in an arena where you have a pretty substantial advantage, they'll just leave. It's just like talking to a brick wall.
Fighting mercs in highsec is generally not fun, for a host of aforementioned reasons. If you try to structure things so that people have no choice but to fight you, you're not gonna get the result you want I'm afraid.
I don't see how you fix wars when any attempt to take the fight to the aggressor ultimately devolves into a shitstorm of docking games and most people don't have an interest in that kind of fight.
Part of being a "carebear" is dealing with player-controlled pirates. The only difference is that the pirates actually want you to explore MORE of EVE. They want the carebear to realize that this game has always been about player-versus-player interaction, with the PVE just being a reason to drive that interaction. 90% of all pirates will give you a GF and if you don't act like a toolbox, they will give you the information you need to prevent their attack in the future and allow you to protect yourself and LEARN MORE OF THE GAME.
If you are getting "curbstomped through mechanics you don't understand" -- LEARN THE MECHANICS. Shooting a rock and reprocessing it or selling it on the market are not the only mechanics you need to be aware of to be successful, and it is not anyone's duty to spoonfeed you basic game info you can damn well find yourself, and easily in fact.
Carebears are spoonfed quite enough... nearly every change made to the game since I stopped playing nearly 3.5 years ago before my return has been for the protection of highsec PVE players. If you don't find highsec warfare fun, you can easily avoid it. I remember when it used to take TIME to leave a corporation. Not this insta-drop corp even with roles and you are safe crap.
If you don't like the game, don't play, but as I told you in a previous post, I've just recently returned AND rerolled, and I'm not having any of the problems you're having with the characters I have in highsec. Not everyone is going to like the game, but the best thing about EVE is that if you aren't liking what you are doing in the game, you have every ability and chance to try to do something else in the universe that you DO enjoy. |
|
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 18:00:36 -
[121] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas 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 [:) wrote:
That would be great. I have characters that operate in high, low, and null and I care about all game issues so I'll try to join any positive discussion. I'm also fresh since I've just returned since the start of the year. :D
Thanks for your efforts in trying to make New Eden more fun for everyone. |
Joanna RB
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:27:29 -
[122] - Quote
Solonius Rex wrote:I think the corp system itself is broken.
First off, single-man corps should not exist. Corps should have a minimum number of people requirement, say around 20 people, and that if you are inactive in a corp for more than 3-4 months, CCP automatically drops you from that corp and places you back in the NPC corp. Corps that drop below the 20 man minimum, are given 24 hour notice before they are closed, and everyone is kicked.
Secondly, leaving a corp should have penalties. NPC corps should have higher tax rates, around 30%, and if you drop corp, you cannot join another corp for 1 week. This will prevent people from lightly hopping around corps, which i think is stupid.
Thirdly, friendly fire off should have penalties. Concord should charge your corp a premium for the ability to protect your members. This should come in the form of a minimum fee, plus taxes, that is charged to the corp. Once you stop paying, friendly fire turns back on again with a 24 hour notice.
With that in mind, any corp that is in a war, or gets wardecced, should be subject to stricter penalties if people wish to drop corp during wars.
We need to make corps meaningful in order to make wardecs meaningful.
Theres a big problem with this suggestion. What exactly are you SUPPOSED to do when war decked? 90% of all war decks are between a greifer corp and a corp with absolutely zero chance. The other 10% is split between genuine wars for territory/posses, and mercs hired to deny 0.0 corps access to highsec (such as Marmites).
The latter 2 I have no problem with whatsoever, even after losing Minmatar Battleship V to a marmite gank in jita by me being stupid.
But the first one is the problem. Wardecks completely ruin the game for those on the wrong side of the griefer, with no material benefit to the greifer other than the e-peen of griefing people. Decking a corp is relativly cheap - a 1-man corp can easily shut down the entire operations of a corp just by paying the 50 mill or whatever. The threat of the gank means you cant ever undock your shiny stuff, and do people really want to just stick to flying rifters while their rattlers rot away in drydock? And if the reverse happens, and the corp gangs up and aces the griefer back to the clonebay, all that happens is he gets in his next ship.
Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.
We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.
Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender. |
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:47:40 -
[123] - Quote
Joanna RB wrote:
Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.
We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.
Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender.
If you would seriously stay docked to a one-man wardec that wasn't active in your system, you are far too risk-adverse. Unless of course, you are AFK in which case you should garner zero sympathy.
"Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.
A pirate mentality is that the asteroid belts are his and thus the miners intruding upon them is intruding upon the pirate's territory. Pirates are known to disregard the laws of New Eden, hence, the technical sovereignty of the system is of no consequence.
You either build your own defenses or you hire someone to fight for you. Very rarely is anyone truly griefing you... they are trying to get you to pay or they are trying to get you to fight or get someone who can bring the fight to them.
Under no scenario should this type of emergent gameplay be squashed, which is exactly what makes balancing a wardec system so difficult in a game with so many choices. I can declare war on you simply because I don't like your ideas or what your corporation stands for... that can't go away.
At no time has EVE ever been marketed as a business or industry simulator. It isn't "Space Mining 2015" by CCP. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
492
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 19:53:38 -
[124] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1129
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 20:40:46 -
[125] - Quote
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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 20:50:53 -
[126] - 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
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2234
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:37:43 -
[127] - Quote
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 that cannot be wardeced are a terrible idea. It massively undermines competition between groups of players, undermines the basic stated purpose of war declarations and diminishes the accomplishment of players in real corporations who have built and maintained their collective identity in spite of conflicts with other players.
That kind of crap is one step away from toggleable PVP flags. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:42:45 -
[128] - 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
|
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
329
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:44:25 -
[129] - 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 you guys have great ideas.
I'd be ok with the old rules back.
But here is what I really want:
For every PVE or money making task, I think there should be a spectrum decision. The spectrum should run from safe to very risky.
If you play on the safe side, you should be able to see the risk takers making much more isk on each side of you.
Or you can take the much more profitable shortcut that'll lead to meeting the cast of the C&P show.
I think this game should be a constant competition between greed and fear.
That's fun. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2234
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:48:26 -
[130] - Quote
I couldn't give a crap about 1 man corps or NPC corps.
People who've made decisions to be in 1 man corps or NPC corps have done so because they don't particularly care to play with other people. And in making that decision they've sacrificed being part of a cohesive group and having an identity beyond themselves and an individual player.
That's totally okay.
If you had corps that could not be wardeced 99% of all highsec corps would switch over to it, instantaneously. Much like they did with the friendly fire toggle. There's absolutely no value to getting people out of NPC corps if all they do is mine or run incursions in perfect safety. That doesn't actually change anything, it just maintains the status quo at the expense of cheapening everyone elses corp ticker. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12809
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:07:13 -
[131] - Quote
Joanna RB wrote: Theres a big problem with this suggestion. What exactly are you SUPPOSED to do when war decked? 90% of all war decks are between a greifer corp and a corp with absolutely zero chance.
If you have "zero chance", it's your own fault.
That's what your side needs to hurry up and get into your thick skulls already. Your "industrial" corps are not supposed to exist. Defending yourself is not supposed to be optional, and there should be consequences for not recruiting any players with combat skills.
If you don't like, the NPC corps doors are always open.
Quote:Wardecks completely ruin the game for those on the wrong side of the griefer
Well, I sure couldn't tell. You know, what with my habit of missioning with a faction battleship during a wardec, and having never lost said ship.
If you have half a brain and 51% of an ass, you are safe during a wardec. I mean, seriously, yammering on about only being able to fly rifters? Do you live in a trade hub, or what?
Quote: Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.
And again, absolutely wrong.
Quote: We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.
According to CCP, your claim is 100% false. You know what really does make people leave the game? Getting bored chewing on rocks and shooting red crosses.
Quote: Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender.
First of all, wardecs exist for only one reason.
To get rid of the loathsome presence of Concord. Wardecs exist to blow up precisely you. Your idea is hateful and unacceptable.
Secondly, absolutely nothing you can do with a wardec, under literally any circumstances, counts as "griefing". Wars are an intended mechanic, and being under a wardec is the intended state of the game for player corps.
If you don't like it, you don't belong in a player corp.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12809
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:24:33 -
[132] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: 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
They have those already. They're called chat channels.
If you really want to get people involved with one another, CCP needs to STOP enabling people trying to ignore the various social aspects of the game, not give them 100% immunity to one thing after another.
Social corps are a bad idea, and 1 man tax evasion corps need to die in a fire as well.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Leto Thule
Origin. Black Legion.
2440
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:30:14 -
[133] - Quote
This thread sucks.
War. War never changes...
Wait.. no thats another game...
Anyhow... War... is not supposed to be a consensual edict. A declaration of war from one entity unto another does not require the approval of said other entity.
Are war decs in EVE broken? Yes. But not because of the point mentioned above. They are broken because at present, there is no penalty for dodging, and no incentive for the defenders. Not all highsec wars are based on the "clay pigeon" theory (which is true, but not relevant). I have seen carebear corps dec each other for "ownership" of mineral fields, POCOS or moons...
What confuses me the most about the topic is that the belief, as a member of a carebear corp, that you have no options. This is wholly untrue. I present you:
Step one: Join a corp as a new player. Make sure the CEO of that corp is a loudmouth self-important type. Step two: Have that CEO come to C&P and **** off Vimsy, talking about how regret this and yada yada that.... Step 3: After you get blapped in some of the absolute most tear inducing fits you can muster up, MOVE TO LOWSEC and learn how to PVP.
Why? Why move? Well because MOST merc corps are too invested in their killboards to risk venturing out of highsec. Make friends. Join FW. Come to terms with the fact that losing ships is part of EVE, and can even be FUN. Of course, some will. But they arent just fighting you out there. If your mission running op gets probed down (you are an idiot) by the war deccers, do you think they are bringing T3 bling? Not if they are smart. Why? Because other interested parties would MUCH rather blap a few Legions or Prots than a Moa running level 3's.
Other options would be to join up with others who share your outlook of the game. Who dont wish to fight, but CAN if able. With enough numbers (and some falcon pilots), you can operate in relative safety safety in lowsec.... mining, running missions, whatever your taste may be.
The point is, that in order to function, you need friends. Those friends provide you security. They provide content. And FUN. Dont expect the majority of the game to be forced to change because YOU want to mine in peace. Its EVE. Its not suppose to be that way.
Big Fat Forum Meanie and Thanatos Scammer
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1130
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:49:58 -
[134] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
I fully agree with everything you said. Large towers are very strong when properly fit and left undefended (by pilots I mean) and they are insanely strong when active pilots defend them.
In wormholes there are more often reasons for dedicating the forces necessary to remove them (though not much more often) than there are in high sec. For the most part it simply isn't worth the trouble.
In High Sec under the current systems the only reason to do it is because you want the moon (moons are worthless now) or you really really really really want to burn their stuff.
Hiring mercs simply isn't cost effective (who wants to play F1 online for 2 - 6 hours?) when you need to split the profits among 20 - 30 guys.
This basically makes Large towers invulnerable unless you catch the eye of the wrong person *coughSnucklefrutscought* (Or miniluv, seriously those are the only two groups I know of who do this in high sec ever) |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2239
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 22:59:09 -
[135] - Quote
I'd legitimately rather fight triage carriers than a defended large POS. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
499
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 23:00:53 -
[136] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1131
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 23:29:03 -
[137] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
Except in order to not be broken social corps would have no tax break (just like an NPC corp), so you would still see 1 man tax shelter corps.
I don't see what advantage social corps would have that cannot be provided by chat channels and such. Anything that they would provide beyond that would seriously undermine actual corporations.
NPC corps are a necessary evil (you need somewhere to go when you get kicked from corp) which I think are still too good (I think taxes should be higher).
So I would not be in favor of 'social' corps only if NPC corps received significant nerfs and the social corps ended up being a stepping stone into real corps, and pretty much nothing else. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2244
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 11:42:37 -
[138] - Quote
For the record it should never be the case that my spy alt is the only competent pilot in a properly fit ship in your entire fleet.
While it's really funny for me it also indicates that you're doing something really wrong with how you train your dudes. |
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 11:51:01 -
[139] - Quote
The problem has never been with hi-sec or corporation mechanics.
The problem is risk averse hi-sec "leet PvPers", "gankers", and "merc corps" who can't seem to find content in low or null sec, so they pick on players who would rather just be left alone. They want PvP on their own terms instead of going out and looking for other PvPers who actually want to fight.
Nowhere in EVE is safe, we get it. Everyone gets it. But this is also the last MMO of its kind, a true sandbox. Forcing your playstyle on others via surprise buttsex PvP in hi-sec is for bored nullbears and players who can't PvP their way out of a paper bag.
The only thing broken here is you. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12813
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 11:58:20 -
[140] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote:The problem has never been with hi-sec or corporation mechanics.
Oddly enough, that's just about 100% false.
Quote: The problem is risk averse hi-sec "leet PvPers", "gankers", and "merc corps" who can't seem to find content in low or null sec, so they pick on players who would rather just be left alone.
No, the problem is that you think you should get to be left alone.
Quote: They want PvP on their own terms instead of going out and looking for other PvPers who actually want to fight.
EVE was built on the concept of non consensual PvP. If you don't want to fight, go play Star Trek.
Quote: Nowhere in EVE is safe, we get it. Everyone gets it.
I really don't think you do get it. I also think you're arguing for your denial of reality to become reality, and that's just not going to happen.
Quote: The only thing broken here is you.
Yeah, because I'm the one playing the game wrong and demanding that my aberrant behavior become the rules, rather than play by the existing rules.
Wait, nope, that's you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2247
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 12:27:29 -
[141] - Quote
Why would I shoot at people who want to be shot at? They aren't the people who need to be shot, they already know that shooting is good.
The only way people will learn that they like being shot at to begin with is for someone to shoot them. That's what happened to me and it's literally my entire motivation for shooting people in highsec. |
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 12:44:51 -
[142] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oddly enough, that's just about 100% false. Not so much.
Quote:No, the problem is that you think you should get to be left alone. You, and others of your ilk, assume that I'm a carebear, and as with most things, you're wrong. I spend my time in low and null sec if I want to PvP...not ganking newbs in hi-sec.
Quote:EVE was built on the concept of non consensual PvP. If you don't want to fight, go play Star Trek. EVE was built on the concept of a sandbox. Non-consensual PvP is a part of that, yes. But your style of play isn't the be all end all in this game. All of you have assumed for years that your style of play is going to somehow awaken the miners and PvEers to a bigger world, and it never happens. It does for some, sure. But not on this "savior of hi-sec" kick most of you are bent on. It's NEVER going to happen. You're not that relevant.
Quote:I really don't think you do get it. I also think you're arguing for your denial of reality to become reality, and that's just not going to happen. Yet here we are in yet another "fix hi-sec" thread where risk averse PvPers come to whine about quality of life problems. You are the real carebears of this game.
Quote: Yeah, because I'm the one playing the game wrong and demanding that my aberrant behavior become the rules, rather than play by the existing rules.
See above.
It's difficult taking anyone in CODE seriously, because ganking miners. |
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1442
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 12:50:21 -
[143] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote:The usual trammelite lies, half truths and self serving crap
Forum alt, calm down.
D.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12819
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 12:51:18 -
[144] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote: Not so much.
Yeah, so much. Corporation and alliance mechanics are very, very broken.
Quote: You, and others of your ilk, assume that I'm a carebear, and as with most things, you're wrong. I spend my time in low and null sec if I want to PvP...not ganking newbs in hi-sec.
Sure you do, random NPC alt, sure you do.
Even if that obvious lie was not an obvious lie, carebear is a mentality, and you fit it to a tee.
Quote: EVE was built on the concept of a sandbox.
Wrong. The people who originally designed EVE Online did so because Ultima Online came up with Trammel, and crippled PvP gameplay.
Quote:All of you have assumed for years that your style of play is going to somehow awaken the miners and PvEers to a bigger world, and it never happens.
Actually, according to CCP themselves, that is exactly what happens.
You lot don't get to try that bullshit narrative anymore. Conflict is what makes people keep playing, not boring them to death with the pathetic excuse for a Facebook game that is mining.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1549
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 13:04:10 -
[145] - Quote
and yet... if a merc corp is hired to put the hurt on an indy corp the very same haterage is spewed at them for doing their job as would be at CODE. for doing that thing they do. They can't fight back! They haz no gunz! Gr33f0rz! Go to null/low/WH/an interstate rest stop if you want PVP! As this thread is about high sec wars, I recommend dropping fifty cents into a payphone and calling someone in null who gives a flying feck at a rolling donut. **** gets tiring. Mostly because, well while I understand where it is coming from as a recovering carebear... it's still the wrong view. Yes, you can get fights in low and null, but those are not the only places for violent fun with your fellow capsuleers. Some of us enjoy hijinks in empire space, and not just suicide ganking.
The war system is intrinsically linked to the corp system in high sec. They are two sides of the same coin if you would. We can tweak the wardec side of it all we want, but if we don't do something to adjust the corp side as well then all efforts are likely to fail.
The defenders need some incentive to fight back beyond losing their assets, this is true. Player corps should have benefits that make them worth fighting for to be bluntly honest. Right now they have things available to them that are worth fighting for, but only if they choose to reach out and employ them. With the attention being put on industry and POS mechanics lately I'm kind of hopeful that CCP may give them just the needed impulse to grab onto something and fight to keep it. Give them a reason to defend what is theirs. Give them a reason to want to win.
On the other hand, the 'neener neener neener, I'll just roll corp' **** needs to be addressed as well. Wardec costs went up because 'reasons'... fine. We need to raise the cost of creating a new corporation to match the cost of a wardec. Wars used to cost 2 mil I think, rolling a corp costs about that much. Fast easy fix, new corps cost 50 million to make. Parity achieved in most cases.
Anyways... I need more beer. I've spewed enough of my drivel. Digest, motherbitches!
I keep a thoughtgun next to the bed, fully loaded with nerdshot. Just in case.
|
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 13:18:50 -
[146] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Wrong. The people who originally designed EVE Online did so because Ultima Online came up with Trammel, and crippled PvP gameplay.
And yet, CCP continues to cater to the carebear. Because subscribers = money. Go figure. It doesn't matter what kind of spin you attempt to put on it, hi-sec war deccing is for risk averse wannabe PvPers. It isn't even PvP at all.
|
Danalee
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
1445
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 13:28:34 -
[147] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote:hi-sec war deccing is for risk averse wannabe PvPers. It isn't even PvP at all. Indeed.
It's not PVP, it's more like doing community service by putting nullbears out of their misery.
D.
Edit: forgot to say, come at me brah, I'll be on the sun at noon.
Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority
Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12819
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 13:33:09 -
[148] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote: And yet, CCP continues to cater to the carebear. Because subscribers = money. Go figure. It doesn't matter what kind of spin you attempt to put on it, hi-sec war deccing is for risk averse wannabe PvPers. It isn't even PvP at all.
Whose fault is that? Mine, or the people who refuse to fight back? In EVE Online, if you are defenseless, it is no one's fault but your own.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
512
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 14:05:54 -
[149] - 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
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:11:26 -
[150] - Quote
Only way to make carebears fight is to have so it affects their isk. Either gives them more or less.
Perhaps one idea is to make it so that by not fighting you lose faction/npc standing, and receive faction/npc standing by fighting. I say this because a lot of carebears are so concerned about their faction standings.
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.
Get CCP to create wardec missions. These would be missions where you have to kill a specific war target or structure. High payout.
That's just me spitballing ideas. |
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:14:35 -
[151] - 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
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:37:37 -
[152] - Quote
I guess you could lockdown their assets. For example make it so once you receive notice of the wardec, all POS cannot be unanchored and BPOs/BPCs cannot be stopped or removed. Other operations can still be done, such as reshipping, refitting, fueling, etc. If the aggressor wins, those assets become theirs. Same goes for the defender, so the if the aggressor loses; the defender gets their assets. Think of it as a hostile takeover. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2248
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:52:45 -
[153] - Quote
A PIS getting taken down without a fight is not necessarily an undesirable outcome. I don't think it's a good idea to have wars affect the functionality of anything. Things should function the sane way when subject to shooting regardless of why they are being shot. POS contents are an issue in other types of space too, lowsec in particular is another area where the safety of the contents is pretty assured.
The only thing a war should do is enable the two involved groups to shoot each other. |
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:59:02 -
[154] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Whose fault is that? Mine, or the people who refuse to fight back? In EVE Online, if you are defenseless, it is no one's fault but your own.
Doesn't seem like they are defenseless at all. They either avoid you completely by docking up or jumping corp. Hence another hi-sec wardecs are broken whine thread.
"We shoot them and shoot them and shoot them, yet they are still winning the war in hi sec. CCP plox change game mechanics so this is easier for us." - Bucket O' Tears |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1132
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:08:57 -
[155] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote:The problem has never been with hi-sec or corporation mechanics.
The problem is risk averse hi-sec "leet PvPers", "gankers", and "merc corps" who can't seem to find content in low or null sec, so they pick on players who would rather just be left alone. They want PvP on their own terms instead of going out and looking for other PvPers who actually want to fight.
Nowhere in EVE is safe, we get it. Everyone gets it. But this is also the last MMO of its kind, a true sandbox. Forcing your playstyle on others via surprise buttsex PvP in hi-sec is for bored nullbears and players who can't PvP their way out of a paper bag.
The only thing broken here is you.
Do you even see how you are contradicting yourself?
Eve isn't safe, and yet you say the only people who make high sec unsafe are 'broken'? By that statement you WANT highsec to be safe, which goes against the fundamental concept of the game.
We shoot people in high sec because WE are the reason highsec isn't safe. WE are what makes highsec unsafe. Without us highsec would be safe and that is unacceptable.
*By we I mean all high sec war dec corps, griefers, scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, gate campers... you name it.* |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1132
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:10:08 -
[156] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Why would I shoot at people who want to be shot at? They aren't the people who need to be shot, they already know that shooting is good.
The only way people will learn that they like being shot at to begin with is for someone to shoot them. That's what happened to me and it's literally my entire motivation for shooting people in highsec.
Getting blown to pieces was literally the best thing that happened to me in my early Eve career. |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1132
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:13:54 -
[157] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote: EVE was built on the concept of a sandbox. Non-consensual PvP is a part of that, yes. But your style of play isn't the be all end all in this game. All of you have assumed for years that your style of play is going to somehow awaken the miners and PvEers to a bigger world, and it never happens. It does for some, sure. But not on this "savior of hi-sec" kick most of you are bent on. It's NEVER going to happen. You're not that relevant.
It's difficult taking anyone in CODE seriously, because ganking miners.
Wow you completely failed to understand what Code is really about. Take a step back, take a deep breath, read some minerbumping posts, talk to a Code pilot on coms, open your eyes to what Code all about, why we do what we do. I'm not saying you'll agree with us or join us, but you'll understand us. Clearly you currently do not.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:16:18 -
[158] - 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 -
[159] - 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
|
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:27:41 -
[160] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Do you even see how you are contradicting yourself?
Eve isn't safe, and yet you say the only people who make high sec unsafe are 'broken'? By that statement you WANT highsec to be safe, which goes against the fundamental concept of the game.
We shoot people in high sec because WE are the reason highsec isn't safe. WE are what makes highsec unsafe. Without us highsec would be safe and that is unacceptable.
*By we I mean all high sec war dec corps, griefers, scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, gate campers... you name it.* Hi-sec remains safe, despite your efforts. That's the point you guys keep missing. What you're doing, all that you have done and will do in the future, it's all for naught. It changes nothing on the big stage. At best, your efforts are a pimple on the arse of hi-sec activities. There are single players in this game who have so much wealth and influence, they can shift entire markets on a whim. That's power. And it's more power than the lot of you have collectively.
Scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, and gate campers are all part of the meta game. They are playing, and winning at Eve in their own right. Miner bumpers, station huggers and wardeccers are just low skill, risk averse, wannabe PvPers. They're the equivalent of thugs who play the Knockout Game. |
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:38:13 -
[161] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Do you even see how you are contradicting yourself?
Eve isn't safe, and yet you say the only people who make high sec unsafe are 'broken'? By that statement you WANT highsec to be safe, which goes against the fundamental concept of the game.
We shoot people in high sec because WE are the reason highsec isn't safe. WE are what makes highsec unsafe. Without us highsec would be safe and that is unacceptable.
*By we I mean all high sec war dec corps, griefers, scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, gate campers... you name it.* Hi-sec remains safe, despite your efforts. That's the point you guys keep missing. What you're doing, all that you have done and will do in the future, it's all for naught. It changes nothing on the big stage. At best, your efforts are a pimple on the arse of hi-sec activities. There are single players in this game who have so much wealth and influence, they can shift entire markets on a whim. That's power. And it's more power than the lot of you have collectively. Scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, and gate campers are all part of the meta game. They are playing, and winning at Eve in their own right. Miner bumpers, station huggers and wardeccers are just low skill, risk averse, wannabe PvPers. They're the equivalent of thugs who play the Knockout Game.
Nope, you still haven't figured it out. Well, I tried. |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:39:15 -
[162] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Tengu Grib *Facepalm Stop replying to the Forum ALT it has no standing in this forum
Fine, have it your way. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
515
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 16:42:54 -
[163] - 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
|
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps Forsaken Asylum
86
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 17:37:08 -
[164] - Quote
I like a lot of the ideas about some sort of Corp structure. The Structure itself could just be something simple like a tower, that you could fuel and add defenses to if you so chose, or be left unfueled and defenseless. Just like with towers, the bigger the structure the more defensive mods it should be able to field. The structure should not provide bonus' to anything, but negate penalties instead. Maybe something along the lines of a concord tax rate, the bigger the corp the higher the tax rate. That way, a corp with no interest in combat, could choose to not deploy a Corp structure, but suffer the same penalties (or greater) of being in an NPC corp.
I would just be interested in making everything scale, larger organizations should have to upgrade their structure once they surpass a certain member count, or start to suffer the same tax penalty. This would make largers corps have to put more on the line to maintain their size, and smaller corps wouldn't suffer much or be as appealing to attack.
When wars are declared, both Corps structures should become vulnerable (You should also be unable to delcare war unless your corp/aliiance has a structure fielded), and you should have to delcare war in order to attack a corps assests. This would even give the null and low entities an advanced warning of an imminent conflict, and while I hate to say it, it would probably become unfeasable for an Alliance like mine to do what we do.
Just a couple ideas.
-Badman
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 17:43:54 -
[165] - Quote
Xanthe Alvo wrote: Scammers, corp thieves, awoxers, mission baiters, and gate campers are all part of the meta game. They are playing, and winning at Eve in their own right. Miner bumpers, station huggers and wardeccers are just low skill, risk averse, wannabe PvPers. They're the equivalent of thugs who play the Knockout Game.
What you did there is list off a set of activities all of which are done by the same general group of people. There is no definitive distinction between people who awox or scam and people who declare wars and bump miners. It's the same people. |
Xanthe Alvo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 18:45:12 -
[166] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:What you did there is list off a set of activities all of which are done by the same general group of people. There is no definitive distinction between people who awox or scam and people who declare wars and bump miners. It's the same people.
On the one hand, you have a set of activities that embraces what EVE is notorious for. On the other hand, you have a set of activities that are the personification of Holeysheet1.
I rest my case. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 19:18:17 -
[167] - Quote
Bringing Holysheet into an argument is unfair. Some people are just leeches. |
Lyric Masters
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 20:37:52 -
[168] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Only way to make carebears fight is to have so it affects their isk. Either gives them more or less.
Perhaps one idea is to make it so that by not fighting you lose faction/npc standing, and receive faction/npc standing by fighting. I say this because a lot of carebears are so concerned about their faction standings.
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.
Get CCP to create wardec missions. These would be missions where you have to kill a specific war target or structure. High payout. Only available when wardecced.
That's just me spitballing ideas.
Good idea, if corporations didn't cost a nickel to start. Most bounties against anyone of note would definitely be worth creating a dummy Corp and spending the wardec fee to get my own bounty. It is why we have the dumb system we have now for bounties - abuse. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
528
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 14:29:02 -
[169] - 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
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5553
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 16:53:44 -
[170] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:How does one go about requesting the forum thread be moved to the proper venue anyways? AFAIK you report your own thread as being in the wrong section, please move to X.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
ISD Supogo
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
487
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 18:09:41 -
[171] - Quote
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
ISD Supogo
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 19:16:29 -
[172] - Quote
No Highsec income is high enough. I would be okay with the income will be decreased by the 15%, you will gain through this structure. But lets be honest the wardecing corp will most times be much stronger than the defensive.
So no better situation for both sides.
-1 |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4397
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:56:09 -
[173] - Quote
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?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 23:53:46 -
[174] - 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
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4397
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 00:20:04 -
[175] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:quite amusing if unproductive and displaying a lack fo having read the OP properly
GÇó ConstStructs: Limited of one per constellation (better than POCOs, so you can gain a 15% ISK, LP and mining yield for the PvE components of your alliance. CorpStructs have a reduced gain, limited to one per system and requiring a moon to anchor (in close proximity an an enemy POS, no doubt). GÇó Carebears Bane: Leeches ISK, LP and ore/gas from active players in-system (resides in the safety of a POS, probably a large one). GÇó NPC corporation tax: Increase to 20% for non-trial accounts (because why not). GÇó Social corporations: 10% mandatory tax, limited to 20 players. Costs $50m ISK to establish (let's make it the same cost to dodge a WarDec so we can attrition the smaller corporation to death). GÇó Player corporations: Minimum of 10 players; after 72-hours of dropping below the minimum all structures and alliances are forfeit (will also assume the cost to establish is $50m ISK). GÇó WarDecs: Can now be assisted on both sides (let the slaughter commence).
Did I miss anything?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 00:28:52 -
[176] - 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
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1500
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 00:43:11 -
[177] - Quote
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 Don'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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:04:27 -
[178] - 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
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1500
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:28:49 -
[179] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
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. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12839
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:29:32 -
[180] - Quote
I do not speak for Code, by the way. I've been saying this kind of thing since before I made this character.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
535
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:50:03 -
[181] - 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 -
[182] - 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
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1500
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 02:22:31 -
[183] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: 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?
Step 1 would be slashing the activity based research and production fee's on Starbases to half that of the system they are in, while increasing the fees in station by around 50%. Anyone doing larger scale production should have very compelling reasons to do it out of a POS, not a station. Unlimited station slots was a terrible idea by my opinion.
Anyone who has subcontracted something out knows you get charged out the ass for their time, their experience, and everything they need to do to finish your job. There is nowhere near enough incentive to manufacture in a POS that can be attacked.
I also find POCO's largely ineffective as a conflict driver in highsec. If the suggested loss involved with either taking or defending a POCO is larger than the moderately-small amount of isk it produces, people tend to just cut their losses and let it be taken.
I would prefer POCO's be moved to a standalone structure or POS mod, that would enable the corp members of the owning corp to use POCO type effects across the constellation. Losing the structure would mean that people are then forced to launch the pickup rockets instead of shipping to a POCO or POCO replacement thing.
But frankly, if you wardec a corp and they want to go full yellow bellied coward and all drop corp and flee to the corner of the empires or take down their tower and roll it into a new corp, I feel completely uninterested in making them stop.
People like that don't magically htfu and start providing interesting content. They run away, or they stop playing. Since I considering them useful to the game if for no other reason than by providing CCP money to improve the things I do in game, supporting any system that ties them down or harshly penalizes them until they no longer want to play, in retaliation for not playing the game according to how you think is should be played (You in this case meaning any member of the highsec wardeccing, bumping, or ganking crowd) is not on my list of things to do.
I don't honestly consider the current system all that bad. You pick on the slow, the stupid, and the ones unwilling to put in effort, and the ones who are smarter, or faster, or just plain willing to take down their entire POS and put it back up again to dodge a wardec can mitigate the effects your war.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1122
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 02:42:16 -
[184] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote: 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?
Step 1 would be slashing the activity based research and production fee's on Starbases to half that of the system they are in, while increasing the fees in station by around 50%. Anyone doing larger scale production should have very compelling reasons to do it out of a POS, not a station. Unlimited station slots was a terrible idea by my opinion. Anyone who has subcontracted something out knows you get charged out the ass for their time, their experience, and everything they need to do to finish your job. There is nowhere near enough incentive to manufacture in a POS that can be attacked. I also find POCO's largely ineffective as a conflict driver in highsec. If the suggested loss involved with either taking or defending a POCO is larger than the moderately-small amount of isk it produces, people tend to just cut their losses and let it be taken. I would prefer POCO's be moved to a standalone structure or POS mod, that would enable the corp members of the owning corp to use POCO type effects across the constellation. Losing the structure would mean that people are then forced to launch the pickup rockets instead of shipping to a POCO or POCO replacement thing. But frankly, if you wardec a corp and they want to go full yellow bellied coward and all drop corp and flee to the corner of the empires or take down their tower and roll it into a new corp, I feel completely uninterested in making them stop. People like that don't magically htfu and start providing interesting content. They run away, or they stop playing. Since I considering them useful to the game if for no other reason than by providing CCP money to improve the things I do in game, supporting any system that ties them down or harshly penalizes them until they no longer want to play, in retaliation for not playing the game according to how you think is should be played (You in this case meaning any member of the highsec wardeccing, bumping, or ganking crowd) is not on my list of things to do. I don't honestly consider the current system all that bad. You pick on the slow, the stupid, and the ones unwilling to put in effort, and the ones who are smarter, or faster, or just plain willing to take down their entire POS and put it back up again to dodge a wardec can mitigate the effects your war.
I agree pretty much entirely with this. I'm thinking that the new structures would be a good time to tidy up POCO bonuses and also fix the industry stuff that teams were supposed to help with. Wardecs would also be intrinsically linked to the new structures and should be revisited at the same time.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12840
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 02:44:08 -
[185] - Quote
"what would you do to improve wardecs and enable conflict in highsec?"
"Duh! I'd massively buff industrial players!"
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1501
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 02:53:24 -
[186] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"what would you do to improve wardecs and enable conflict in highsec?" "Duh! I'd massively buff industrial players!"
Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures and likely into jobs that take far longer than the 24 hour wardec timer is totally a buff.I mean, you can take down jobs and get all your materials back and keep all your research on jobs up to the moment you take it down, right?
Reduced production costs is not really much of a buff in any case. It all gets rolled over into the cost the people who buy it pay. Being able to shave 10% off your production cost doesn't mean you gain that 10% as profit if everyone else can do it too, it means you need to market your goods lower to compete.
Besides, I thought you were trying to improve reasons to fight over. Even if it was a buff to industrialists, it's in no way shape an opposite to generating PvP content. Why would it?
Unless you are really just after the fun you get by blowing up miners or idiots running missions during wardecs, and hoping for tears as they stop playing because even leaving corp generates killrights. It's true to does little to help you stalk individuals to gank.
You want people to stand and fight for something, give them a reason to fight over something. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12840
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 03:01:48 -
[187] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures
You mean the Poses they get 24 hours notice to empty their loot from? Oh wait, it's not 24 hours, it's longer, because for some reason they get reinforcement timers in highsec. Effectively, you're asking for a huge buff to industrial players, while making highsec PvP players have to fruitlessly shoot way, way more structures that barely cost anything in the first place. But wait, there's more! If you don't want to grind structure timers, you can go right back to the untenable status quo, except with every industrial player in the game having their income doubled!
The fact that you think people wouldn't see through that trite nonsense is just insulting.
The point of this is not to massively buff carebears. It's not to turn highsec into small scale sov warfare, either. It's to enable conflict, to make it more likely to happen, not drastically less.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1501
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 03:15:31 -
[188] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Anhenka wrote: Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures
You mean the Poses they get 24 hours notice to empty their loot from? Oh wait, it's not 24 hours, it's longer, because for some reason they get reinforcement timers in highsec. Effectively, you're asking for a huge buff to industrial players, while making highsec PvP players have to fruitlessly shoot way, way more structures that barely cost anything in the first place. But wait, there's more! If you don't want to grind structure timers, you can go right back to the untenable status quo, except with every industrial player in the game having their income doubled! The fact that you think people wouldn't see through that trite nonsense is just insulting. The point of this is not to massively buff carebears. It's not to turn highsec into small scale sov warfare, either. It's to enable conflict, to make it more likely to happen, not drastically less.
The only way they can pull it all out is if all their jobs take less than 24 hours. Highly unlikely for basically any serious manufacturer.
And I guess you missed that whole "It's not an huge increase in industrialist profit because they are competing against everyone else with the same capabilities and the same margins" bit, did you. Margins of profit are likely to remain similar to current even if you suddenly removed all of the costs associated with manufacturing in a POS. There is no government price fixing of sale costs.
And no, the point is that you think conflict needs to happen on your terms only. All of the ideas I have seen in the thread can basically by summed up with "Let's massively punish people for being in an NPC corp, let's punish people for making small or solo corps, and lets punish everyone who tries to do anything to avoid the wardec on my terms"
You keep spouting on about "untenable status quo", and "enabling conflict", "encourage PvP". As long as it's all on your terms only of course. If an idea dares not "enable (highsec war deccing) conflict, to make it more likely to happen", or god forbid actually make corps use things to fight over as a conflict driver, it's "trite nonsense"
Why should I treat that with any less derision and contempt than I do the requests of miners for super Concord or making bumping an exploit? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12840
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 03:41:47 -
[189] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: And no, the point is that you think conflict needs to happen on your terms only.
Nope, that's still you, wanting to collate wardecs with structure grinding.
Quote: You keep spouting on about "untenable status quo", and "enabling conflict", "encourage PvP". As long as it's all on your terms only of course.
As opposed to you? The only way you aren't disagreeing with "buff wardecs" is when that really means "not so stealth nerf them".
You're projecting like a mofo right now.
Quote: Why should I treat that with any less derision and contempt than I do the requests of miners for super Concord or making bumping an exploit?
Because conflict is what keeps new players subscribing, not chewing on rocks like a mentally handicapped dog. There is no equivalency between the two sides. One wants something to improve the game, the other wants something that benefits them but hurts the game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1501
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 04:16:25 -
[190] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Because conflict is what keeps new players subscribing, not chewing on rocks like a mentally handicapped dog. There is no equivalency between the two sides. One wants something to improve the game, the other wants something that benefits them but hurts the game.
Good to see a well balanced opinion in here.
If you happen to come up with an idea that doesn't overwhelmingly favor yourself and your playstyle to the massive detriment of everyone not you, I might actually support it.
I won't hold my breath though.
Feel free to sit around and circle jerk with other members of the one sided highsec wardeccing crew all you want, but when you get no traction with anyone else, don't be surprised. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12840
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 04:30:11 -
[191] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: Good to see a well balanced opinion in here.
That's not even my opinion. It's CCP's data.
Quote: If you happen to come up with an idea that doesn't overwhelmingly favor yourself and your playstyle to the massive detriment of everyone not you, I might actually support it.
Thanks for showing that you haven't read the thread, in any case.
Quote: Feel free to sit around and circle jerk with other members of the one sided highsec wardeccing crew all you want, but when you get no traction with anyone else, don't be surprised.
The really funny part is that it didn't even take a page after that accusation was made(I believe by you) to see you and Corraidin fluffing each other about your oh so wonderful idea to basically ruin the whole point of wardecs.
Hypocrite.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Don Purple
Snuggle Society The Marmite Collective
1189
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 04:39:09 -
[192] - Quote
small scale highsec sov? Lul :P
I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.
|
Madd Adda
79
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 04:47:57 -
[193] - Quote
It's been mentioned before how the SP difference between a grief dec's aggressors and defenders can be so why not place a limit on the hull size that can be used to attack based on the defender's corp size?
Corps/alliances/coalitions that have 1-50 members total can use hulls up t1 frigs and t1 dessies 51-100 up to t2/faction frigs, t3 dessies, and t1 cruisers the trend goes on.
say the marmites decs a corp of 48 people, they can't use anything bigger than a t1 frig/destroyer to fight, BUT can attack larger hull ships of the defender. If that happens the limited engagement kicks in and allows retaliation just to be fair. If either side attacks the other in a ship larger than the specified size and isn't in limited engagement with the WT, concord pops them if in high sec (no killrights generated). Oh, and if the defend corp adds three members nothing changes because the war is based on the member list at the time of the dec. EDIT: forgot to mention defender's mercs. They would be bound the same way as others in the sense of hull size since the dec was to a corp of 48.
This way, even small corps can get into war with low SP players, aggressors get content and a challenge since they can't fly their shiny ships and utterly curbstomp their WTs. YAY frig roams!
aaaaand here comes Kaarous to tell how wrong i am to place further restrictions on war when wars are meant to get rid of concord, blah blah blah.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2097
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:09:08 -
[194] - Quote
Small corp does not mean low SP corp. Large corp does not mean high SP corp. High SP does not mean any of it is in combat.
That's why the idea of restricting hulls is bad, not to get into awkward arbitrary restrictions. Mechanics should be as simple and as intuitive as possible.
However there is nothing needing changing with the wardec system at all. The changes need to happen on the corp benefits side, as kaarous and others have complained, there is no reason to be in a high sec corp really, so they need benefits (& not stupid leeching income things) to make it worth staying in corp and fighting. |
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:15:34 -
[195] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Small corp does not mean low SP corp. Large corp does not mean high SP corp. High SP does not mean any of it is in combat.
That's why the idea of restricting hulls is bad, not to get into awkward arbitrary restrictions. Mechanics should be as simple and as intuitive as possible.
However there is nothing needing changing with the wardec system at all. The changes need to happen on the corp benefits side, as kaarous and others have complained, there is no reason to be in a high sec corp really, so they need benefits (& not stupid leeching income things) to make it worth staying in corp and fighting.
I do realize the large corp Gëá high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2097
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:25:00 -
[196] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote: I do realize the large corp Gëá high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.
Sure.... But there is no reason to restrict hulls. There are just too many variables that could go either way. What if the attackers are a small low SP corp wanting to roam in cruisers. It doesn't make sense to simply put a restriction on based on even a single size factor. Yet to get realistic restrictions it becomes a vastly complex system. Therefore.... KISS applies. No hull restrictions are the best way to go. Everyone understands. |
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:31:20 -
[197] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Madd Adda wrote: I do realize the large corp Gëá high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.
Sure.... But there is no reason to restrict hulls. There are just too many variables that could go either way. What if the attackers are a small low SP corp wanting to roam in cruisers. It doesn't make sense to simply put a restriction on based on even a single size factor. Yet to get realistic restrictions it becomes a vastly complex system. Therefore.... KISS applies. No hull restrictions are the best way to go. Everyone understands.
then things default to the original reasons for avoiding war: SP disparity, unwillingness to participate due to either choice or lack of skill, or just isn't worth fighting. If the defenders knew they were facing off against ships sizes comparable to their own skills, they'd be more incline to join in the fighting because they know they at least they can make a dent.
Naturally, there are those that don't want to fight one way or the other, there's nothing to be done in that instance.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12842
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:43:29 -
[198] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:grief dec
There is no such thing. Wardecs are, by definition, not griefing. Ever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2098
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:54:18 -
[199] - Quote
Skills in what hull? A low SP person may not have many SP in frigates at all. And a high SP person may not have any SP in Battleships but have maxed every race of Frigate to V including T2 weapons to V. Restricting hull size does not do anything to reduce disparity. |
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:55:21 -
[200] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Madd Adda wrote:grief dec There is no such thing. Wardecs are, by definition, not griefing. Ever.
depends how one defines it. I see it as the intentional disruption of activity, but i guess it is rather broad
Carebear extraordinaire
|
|
elise densi
Valkyrie Knights
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 05:58:45 -
[201] - Quote
if u guys want wardecs so bad why dont u "elite pvp'ers" wardec eachother instead of blueing up in highsec?
then u will have ur content problems solved |
elise densi
Valkyrie Knights
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:00:40 -
[202] - Quote
oh thats right mybad u guys dont fight targets who make up for a threat and only fight eazy free kills |
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:09:08 -
[203] - Quote
mmmm them fighting words...
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1381
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:10:02 -
[204] - Quote
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.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:13:37 -
[205] - Quote
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.
i can't say anything about the bumping, but gankers in npc corps would have -5 or lower sec status. they can be fired on without consequence, it's just a matter of having some ready in a ship.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
elise densi
Valkyrie Knights
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:14:18 -
[206] - Quote
those gankers with negative sec status upon killed by concord (podded) they get shipped to low/nullsec npc null with no posability to get back to highsec unless sec status fixed |
Madd Adda
80
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:20:10 -
[207] - Quote
elise densi wrote:those gankers with negative sec status upon killed by concord (podded) they get shipped to low/nullsec npc null with no posability to get back to highsec unless sec status fixed
wow, I'm a care bear and even i think this is a bad idea....
Carebear extraordinaire
|
elise densi
Valkyrie Knights
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:22:24 -
[208] - Quote
well if those gankers rly want to coninue ganking they just buy the lost sec status up again but atleast its another isk sink |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
933
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 06:25:35 -
[209] - Quote
elise densi wrote:well if those gankers rly want to coninue ganking they just buy the lost sec status up again but atleast its another isk sink Security tags are not an ISK sink.
This thread is about wardecs. If you have such a problem with ganking I suggest you start a new thread detailing all the serious consequences you think gankers should receive so they can be discussed properly. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 07:33:12 -
[210] - Quote
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. 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. |
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
537
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 07:53:06 -
[211] - 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
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1381
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:06:28 -
[212] - Quote
By the way, please also keep in mind that there are many people who are not interested in too much social interaction. I am perfectly happy in my 1-man corp, where I enjoy freedom, prosperity and the life how I want to live it. For social interaction, I attend various public channels. My goal is to live my uneventful daily life in EVE with some spice here and there.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12844
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:21:55 -
[213] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:So, what about bumpers and gankers in NPC corps?
Are they undertaking income generating activities? No. They don't really matter.
Quote:They have absolutely no drawbacks for their stay in safety.
Gankers aren't safe in NPC corps. To most of them, you can shoot them anywhere. So I hardly see why that even matters, unless you brought it up just to derail the thread by griping about ganking.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:24:08 -
[214] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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.
I doubt you ever can. The people I mentioned are in NPC corps because of a) "invisibility", b) the appearance of being "carebear" and c) ths trivial ability to biomass them once they have been rumbled (which is legal because you're not doing it to avoid in game penalties, so much as limit players being able to prelock the loot scooper as you never know who it is for long. Ditto the scanning alts, you eventually work out who they belong to so they are removed).
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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.
I get that, it's a very difficult thing to do. The efforts are better than many but do still have some issues which have already been discussed in a pretty damned good way for a thread like this
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
A possibility, but limited by people being able to flip corps to redec. Real merc outfits would be less likely to do this, but everyone else could and likely would.
Something that hasn't been well covered is why people don't fight, at least beyond because they're cowards/bad/omg why won't they undock to die.
So I'll tell you the reason I won't fight and you may judge for yourself: As oft repeated if you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong. The thing about highsec is, threat assessment is typically impossible. Local is jammed with people, contrast with my usual area of space where you KNOW the field and the threat clearly. Map stats show groupings liable to be hugging titans, an interceptor can scout the immediate gates. This is impossible in high sec. Too many people, alts are not a known quantity. Boosters are infinitely harder to shut down for the same reason.
That alone is a huge incentive to be wary/suspicious/decline the engagement. To me, that is just common sense, it is the same reason one jumps a scout before the main fleet out of highsec.
Compounding this, is the massive strength of logistic chains. Yes, absolutely they'll go flashy yellow, but because a)shooting flashy yellow in high sec is typically a trap, people are conditioned against it and b) the level of DPS/disruption required to break said chain is absolutely massive. If you have that presence in local, you'll not see the wartarget. Having that level of DPS in a neutral corp isn't practical for normal day to day running of a regular corp. Logistics are a PITA that way.
There are, of course ways around this - having your own massive supply of neutral RR, undocking an epic alpha blob, keeping lots of people logged off in reserve to undock in curses/falcons to mess with a logi chain. But really, faced with that and all that manpower required and effort to be realistic, the only smart play is to not play [in high sec].
Of course, not all wardecs have this behind them, but I tend to find I live a LOT longer if I assume the enemy is at least as competent and devious as I am.
For me, shooting a wartarget is little different to shooting a known baitship for hotdroppers. Just ignore it and it'll go away. Assuming the enemy are incompetent and shooting anyway is a fast way to get killed.
I suppose people might paint me a coward or a "carebear" and that is their prerogative - I'd gladly take the fights out of high sec, but since not a single war target has come to visit....we've not had the opportunity. Indeed that's pretty much standard for the entire corp - don't fight WT in high sec it just encourages the inconvenience, however if they come visiting then bury them. We simply refuse to fight on their terms and they refuse to fight on ours so it lapses after a week. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1381
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:40:09 -
[215] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, what about bumpers and gankers in NPC corps?
Are they undertaking income generating activities? No. They don't really matter. Quote:They have absolutely no drawbacks for their stay in safety. Gankers aren't safe in NPC corps. To most of them, you can shoot them anywhere. So I hardly see why that even matters, unless you brought it up just to derail the thread by griping about ganking. Bumpers are not undertaking income generating activities? I beg your pardon, but people like Siegfried Cohenberg, Dibbes and others earn hundreds of millions from extortion. In their NPC corp bumping Machariels. They matter, they of all people matter the most. As long as they can stay unaffected in NPC corps, going after their business, I deem any attempt to force other people out of NPC corps a failed policy.
I know more than enough gankers, Thrasher, Vexor and Tornado gankers mostly, who are in NPC corps and have a security status well above -5. you cannot shoot them anywhere just like that. Oh, and before you give me public killrights on them: I will certainly not pay 80M to shoot a Thrasher or 400M to shoot a Tornado.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12844
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:52:39 -
[216] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: Bumpers are not undertaking income generating activities?
Not unless there's some way to get ticks of LP or bounties from bumping things, no.
They do not generate income, they are completely neutral in that regard. Anything they manage to obtain is an entirely meta activity, and not relevant to the subject of income mechanics, or wardecs, in any way.
Quote:As long as they can stay unaffected in NPC corps, going after their business, I deem any attempt to force other people out of NPC corps a failed policy.
Of course you do, that's your smokescreen to derail this thread.
Quote:I know more than enough gankers, Thrasher, Vexor and Tornado gankers mostly, who are in NPC corps and have a security status well above -5. you cannot shoot them anywhere just like that.
No, but that's what the killright and sec tags systems are for.
Quote:Oh, and before you give me public killrights on them: I will certainly not pay 80M to shoot a Thrasher or 400M to shoot a Tornado.
The reality is nothing of the sort, and you'd know that if you bothered to take a look around and get a clue. Heck, there was a thread on the front page of C&P the other day to that effect.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12844
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:56:08 -
[217] - Quote
Oh, and before you cry about how the 100% meta activity of ransoming people (in general, not just with bumping) is something that should be subject to game balance...
If you do, I'll bring up people who beg in local. Those darned beggers, making isk with a convincing newbie account for their main, not subject to any risk, rabble rabble rabble.
And then I'll repeat that meta activities are by definition not income generating mechanics, and are not relevant to the discussion save for the fact that you brought it up to derail the thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:56:35 -
[218] - Quote
Loyalty points don't generate income, by the way. Isk sink, in fact. |
Neutral Haulermeister
The Corporate Raiders
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:57:02 -
[219] - Quote
*pokes head in, sees wardeccers talking about ******* with corp creation* just keep in mind a few things Corp Code is... touchy the issue with the recent UI changes highlight that very well
Changing things with Corps affects low, null and WH as well as carebears
Artificial limits suck, just as much as I don't want to only be able to drop only 5 catalysts on a freighter, I don't think imposing too much order on corps would be a good thing
Ganking is a different issue and ought to be discussed elsewhere
In my eyes if the stick is used towards NPC corp members it should be across the board, 20% tax, Fac Po engages people in NPC corps in enemy space, Higher Market fees in enemy space, no ability to cloak or use cynos, and maybe 1-2 other things just to really make sure that stick HURTS because, lets hit everyone with it, joining a player corp isn't hard, mind you I'm just for the status quo but if we want to change might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater...
or just maintain status quo, I just want more stuff to go boom tbh, content is fun and I don't mind ganking occasionally just to get it...
Accepts your stuff if you're quitting EVE, Please mail and contract me your stuff.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12847
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:59:12 -
[220] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Loyalty points don't generate income, by the way. Isk sink, in fact.
They do generate income, by definition, just as mining does. They do not generate isk, the two are different things.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:07:03 -
[221] - Quote
Not risk free. If the market tanks you can lose money. You also PvP in supplying the materials they need and the selling of them. The isk faucet is the only consistent one. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1381
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:22:24 -
[222] - Quote
Income is earning ISK, regardless of the means or sources. What you are talking about is ISK generation. Earning ISK by ISK redistribution from one character to another is Income generation.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1123
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:37:47 -
[223] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Anhenka wrote: Good to see a well balanced opinion in here.
That's not even my opinion. It's CCP's data. Quote: If you happen to come up with an idea that doesn't overwhelmingly favor yourself and your playstyle to the massive detriment of everyone not you, I might actually support it.
Thanks for showing that you haven't read the thread, in any case. Quote: Feel free to sit around and circle jerk with other members of the one sided highsec wardeccing crew all you want, but when you get no traction with anyone else, don't be surprised.
The really funny part is that it didn't even take a page after that accusation was made(I believe by you) to see you and Corraidin fluffing each other about your oh so wonderful idea to basically ruin the whole point of wardecs. Hypocrite.
I never type with my mouth full, it's bad manners.
My view is along the same lines a Ahnenka's in that you need to give people more reason to put expensive assets in space and leave them there. If they gain enough benefit they will be more inclined to defend them. It is a simple idea, have people invested in the wellbeing of their structures and they will fight to defend them.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
939
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:38:08 -
[224] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Income is earning ISK, regardless of the means or sources. What you are talking about is ISK generation. Earning ISK by ISK redistribution from one character to another is Income generation. This is all semantics.
There are plenty of ways to make an income in this game, but from a game design point of view the most problematic ones are where resources are generated out of nothing and put into the economy. Resources like ISK from incursions/ratting, LPs from missions, ore from mining, etc. All of these need to be gated with risk (or at least significant effort) to prevent them from flooding into the economy and destroying it. This is where risk vs. reward is important.
Bumpers, gankers, traders, scammers, corp thieves, pirates and the like do not put resources into the economy. They move them around, and by this can generate an income for a player, but this is not really relevant to the risk vs. reward design of the game. The success of these PvP activities have risk and effort levels determined completely by other player's actions and ultimately do not affect the overall economy detrimentally. Whereas resource farmers do present a danger to the global economy by addinh resources to it.
That all said, I have no problem with bumpers, gankers, scammers and the sort being forced into wardeccable player corps, as long as that is the rule for all players. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so if carebears are forced into player corps, so should bumpers. But ultimately I think NPC corps play an important role as a temporary place a besieged player can fall back to if needed so they should exist in some form. It just shouldn't be the most optimal way to play the game as it is now.
Sorry OP for not commenting on your proposal, but I do have some ideas on how to make wardecs more useful and engaging. I will save them for a later post though.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1381
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:42:10 -
[225] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:That all said, I have no problem with bumpers, gankers, scammers and the sort being forced into wardeccable player corps, as long as that is the rule for all players. What is good for the goose is good for the gander... I share this sentiment, but others seem to be vehemently opposed to it.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12853
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 20:17:11 -
[226] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Black Pedro wrote:That all said, I have no problem with bumpers, gankers, scammers and the sort being forced into wardeccable player corps, as long as that is the rule for all players. What is good for the goose is good for the gander... I share this sentiment, but others seem to be vehemently opposed to it.
Who? All I've been telling you is that your insistence on derailing the thread by crying about gankers is misplaced to begin with, since most of them are perma flashy anyway.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4405
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 23:56:10 -
[227] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Yeah continue to read onto post 4 I read through your proposal (including post 4), unless you added or edited anything since?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 04:53:37 -
[228] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Black Pedro wrote:That all said, I have no problem with bumpers, gankers, scammers and the sort being forced into wardeccable player corps, as long as that is the rule for all players. What is good for the goose is good for the gander... I share this sentiment, but others seem to be vehemently opposed to it. Who? All I've been telling you is that your insistence on derailing the thread by crying about gankers is misplaced to begin with, since most of them are perma flashy anyway.
Perma flashy for seconds whilst undocked to gank...please don't pretend there isreal danger to your -10 gank alt as there is very little real prospect of catching him/her/it at undock or between warps to safes as you hit the target. It's true that anyone can shoot them of course but the actual danger based on your attack profile? Non-existent unless you really screw up. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 08:20:42 -
[229] - Quote
Just because people have learned to mitigate the extremely punitive mechanics regarding negative sec status, does not mean those penalties don't exist.
If you want to complain about why gankers don't hang around in open space (Hint, the answer is Facpo forces them to), then you are s.t.i.l.l. in the wrong thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1392
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:22:47 -
[230] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Who? All I've been telling you is that your insistence on derailing the thread by crying about gankers is misplaced to begin with, since most of them are perma flashy anyway. Your insistence on that I derail threads is alway amusing to read. I have not seen myself shed any tear about ganking as they do not affect me. What I care about, however, is their hypocrisy and I will not grow tired of pointing that out over and over again when people of your caliber call for more punishment for players who do not follow your rules while you do not follow your own rules. Whether that is about gankers, war deccers, sissy PVPers or PVEers.
As Black Pedro pointed it out: The same rules have to apply to all players equally. And as long as your lot keeps up the income generation in NPC corps, I do not see any warrant for changes to the system. You want other people to follow your example, so set an example that they can follow. Hint: Siegfried Cohenberg's stay in Deep Core Mining is not the example you are looking for. If that is derailing a thread about more involved war dec mechanics in order to make income generation more risky, make sure to keep up entertaining me.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:29:52 -
[231] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: As Black Pedro pointed it out: The same rules have to apply to all players equally.
You say, defending dec dodging...
Besides, as per your usual trolling, you have ignored that I propose mechanics that do effect all NPC corp players, not just certain ones.
Quote: And as long as your lot keeps up the income generation in NPC corps
Bumping is not income generation, neither is ganking or ransoming or anything else. They are meta activities and are entirely neutral in those terms. This is the derailing part I was talking about, where you try to make the thread change topic to dealing with your lie.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:37:03 -
[232] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Just because people have learned to mitigate the extremely punitive mechanics regarding negative sec status, does not mean those penalties don't exist.
If you want to complain about why gankers don't hang around in open space (Hint, the answer is Facpo forces them to), then you are s.t.i.l.l. in the wrong thread.
You do realize that lots of full stops don't magically make a word special I hope...
To be clear you point out that you don't hang around in space because of facpo(which doesn't cover you npc scanning alts of course) yet complain that wartargets use every means available to do the equivalent to avoid summary execution. You use a word very often here that fits perfectly...
Before you rant about me wanting to make wardecs harder I don't. Every time I have made a suggestion here it is with making wardecs worth fighting in mind. You want to force people into it which will never work. I prefer to entice the percenyage who might by giving them reason to. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1141
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:45:09 -
[233] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: As Black Pedro pointed it out: The same rules have to apply to all players equally.
You say, defending dec dodging... Besides, as per your usual trolling, you have ignored that I propose mechanics that do effect all NPC corp players, not just certain ones.
But they do not affect them equally. Which is the crux of the problem, you're trying to punish people whose playstyles you find distasteful. You're being careful to avoid anything which might upset your gameplay - for example I see neutral haulers are left alone in your proposal, funny that. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:54:31 -
[234] - Quote
afkalt wrote: But they do not affect them equally.
Tax increases could not be more equal, in conjuction with the structure changes anyway.
Quote: Which is the crux of the problem, you're trying to punish people whose playstyles you find distasteful.
No, I'm suggesting that some things be removed from NPC corps because those particular income generating activities do not belong in a setting with such lessened risk.
Quote: You're being careful to avoid anything which might upset your gameplay - for example I see neutral haulers are left alone in your proposal, funny that.
Please, elaborate, how should someone go after neutral haulers with proposed warfare changes, then? I left those alone because, barring outright forbidding NPC corp players from flying specific ships, it's basically not possible.
You're just trying to obfuscate, like the rest of them, like you always do.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:59:00 -
[235] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: To be clear you point out that you don't hang around in space because of facpo(which doesn't cover you npc scanning alts of course) yet complain that wartargets use every means available to do the equivalent to avoid summary execution.
Those two things could not be more different. Gankers using safes, instas, and other methods of actively avoiding people is just fine.
Playing games with the corp creation mechanics so you don't have to do ANYTHING else to defend yourself?
Not fine. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4449
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:04:46 -
[236] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1141
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:06:03 -
[237] - Quote
The difference between locking them out of certain missions vs locking out certain ships is semantics. They simply do not suit your narrative because without neutral haulers in NPC corps, gankers wither and die because they can no longer hide behind game mechanics.
How am I suppose to bring war to someone who uses neutral haulers to avoid all the risk? What punitive measure do they face? Zero, under your proposals. But someone daring to carebear must be locked out of content, killrights must follow them. Because it suits you. What doesn't suit you is the same measure being applied to ALL aspects of NPCs corps.
So if you're locking out NPC corps from areas of the game, man up and follow it through. No transport ships, no freighters, no scanning modules, no warping to the fleet member, no probes, nothing. If you want to push people into player corps - you must attack everything equally. To not do so is deeply hypocritical and people may thing that actually you have an agenda beyond balance.
You see, all your ways to push people into player corps do absolutely nothing to provide incentives for the nefarious uses of NPC corps to move, no punitive measures for them. Only the people who play the game in a way you find distasteful. This is not a balanced approach.
What your approach is designed to do, is push people into situations where you get to shoot them, whilst protecting all your own ways of avoiding said space violence. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1125
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:08:58 -
[238] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: To be clear you point out that you don't hang around in space because of facpo(which doesn't cover you npc scanning alts of course) yet complain that wartargets use every means available to do the equivalent to avoid summary execution.
Those two things could not be more different. Gankers using safes, instas, and other methods of actively avoiding people is just fine. Playing games with the corp creation mechanics so you don't have to do ANYTHING else to defend yourself? Not fine. Snip... following ISD Ezwal removal of text...
The end result is the same, both sides are mitigating practically all risk. The ganking side avoids it by using npc scan alts who can't even be wardecced and only launches the gank alt when a target has been identified. Trying to catch that alt is like trying to intercept an icbm. Players who don't want a war use legal mechanics to avoid a part of the game that they don't want forced upon them. Until CCP deem this to be wrong there is nothing illegal or exploitative about it. Those declaring war just need to pick their targets more carefully. It should be obvious from war histories who will fight and who will not... |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1394
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:12:52 -
[239] - Quote
Fancy, now we start GMing people because ideas don't suit the personal taste. Well done.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:13:20 -
[240] - Quote
afkalt wrote:The difference between locking them out of certain missions vs locking out certain ships is semantics.
Not at all. There's an order of magnitude's difference between giving player corps a carrot that is otherwise not obtainable, and the absurdly heavy handed restriction of losing availability of certain ships.
The latter is only used in a few small instances in the game, because it's such a big deal.
Quote: They simply do not suit your narrative because without neutral haulers in NPC corps, gankers wither and die because they can no longer hide behind game mechanics.
And there you are, rambling off topic again.
No, it doesn't fit because:
You can't really do anything to them without using an insanely heavy handed mechanic.
And because they are not income generating activities, and those are what is subject to risk vs reward. Only activities that create assets, not ones that just move them around.
Even you can tell the difference, but you're ignoring it to suit yourself.
Quote: How am I suppose to bring war to someone who uses neutral haulers to avoid all the risk? What punitive measure do they face? Zero, under your proposals.
Wrong. Their existing vulnerabilities still remain, vulnerabilities that you and the other carebears here have whined about for a long time. Thus exposing your argument as self contradictory, purely to be argumentative.
Quote:What doesn't suit you is the same measure being applied to ALL aspects of NPCs corps.
That, or I have a brain, and I realize there really isn't any action for which you can slap a killright on a neutral hauler?
You're throwing a ranty, childish tantrum at this point, and you need to settle down.
Quote:This is not a balanced approach.
It is a balanced approach, that's why you hate it so much. Because your goal is not balance, it's to maintain the unbalanced advantage you currently enjoy.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:17:17 -
[241] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The end result is the same
No, it's not. You can still shoot at the gankers if you are fast enough, or they are slow, or if they are attacking something. You can overcome their actions through skill at the game.
But no matter how fast I am at hitting CTRL click on the overview, or how many sebos I fit, I can't beat dec dodging. It is the perfect, un counterable tactic.
Nevermind that you're also ignoring the basic point, that being that dec dodging requires no effort or expenditure of assets for such a huge benefit. Both arguments are equally damning, but you cannot say that they have the same effect, because they don't.
As for the rest, since you wandered off into yet another off topic tangent about alts, I'll say this.
If you want CCP to get rid of scanning alts for whatever carebear crusade you have in mind, make your own thread about it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1125
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:36:16 -
[242] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The end result is the same
No, it's not. You can still shoot at the gankers if you are fast enough, or they are slow, or if they are attacking something. You can overcome their actions through skill at the game. But no matter how fast I am at hitting CTRL click on the overview, or how many sebos I fit, I can't beat dec dodging. It is the perfect, un counterable tactic. Nevermind that you're also ignoring the basic point, that being that dec dodging requires no effort or expenditure of assets for such a huge benefit. Both arguments are equally damning, but you cannot say that they have the same effect, because they don't. As for the rest, since you wandered off into yet another off topic tangent about alts, I'll say this. If you want CCP to get rid of scanning alts for whatever carebear crusade you have in mind, make your own thread about it.
Being able to dec dodge means not running any job that takes over 24 hours. Pretty hobbling in itself. And if someone dodges a wardec you can always gank them. I also thought that a new corp can't stand up a POS for 7 days which would be most inconvenient for any large producer.
Interesting how you see the use of alts to avoid being wardeccable as a tangent, seems to be very relevant to me. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:38:57 -
[243] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Being able to dec dodge means not running any job that takes over 24 hours.
There's an "if" there that you're missing. A pretty big one too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1142
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:44:53 -
[244] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Interesting how you see the use of alts to avoid being wardeccable as a tangent, seems to be very relevant to me.
That's just is, isn't it? It's entirely relevant.
People want war to mean something, to be unavoidable, to have meaningful player impact. But only so long as their gameplay choices to avoid war are well left alone.
NPC corps shouldn't lose select access to certain gameplay aspects - if they're losing then they must lose globally. Anything else is not balanced, it's fairly simple.
To quote Black Pedro - what is good for the goose.....
The argument could be summed up as "Dear CCP, nerf rock, paper is fine - love scissors". |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:49:28 -
[245] - Quote
afkalt wrote: People want war to mean something, to be unavoidable, to have meaningful player impact. But only so long as their gameplay choices to avoid war are well left alone.
You're trying really hard to ignore the fact that my suggestions revolve around income generation activities.
But then, a smokescreen is all you really have.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1394
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 10:53:08 -
[246] - Quote
Income generating or ISK generating?
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:03:38 -
[247] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Income generating or ISK generating?
Income. Both missions and incursions generate LP as an asset, and mining generates ore.
Those are activities that generate something into the game world. Just about everything else in the game, even manufacturing, simply moves assets around, alters them, or destroys them.
It's not just "anything you do that can possibly make money", I am, and have been, talking about activities that generate assets into the game.
But then, I have said that, what? At least twice now in this thread alone?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1142
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:04:21 -
[248] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Income generating or ISK generating?
Actually it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. This is about wardecs and making them more meaningful, encouraging people to be in player corps and fight back.
To do that, all NPC members should feel that any pressure applied equally, what we have is an attempt to only harm aspects of the game certain individuals dislike or are disdainful of.
War should be meaningful to all, not just the people you don't like. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12855
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:07:56 -
[249] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Actually it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.
Proving that you didn't even read the OP before you jumped right in to trolling.
Quote: War should be meaningful to all, not just the people you don't like.
Then let's just make the NPC corps at war with each other by default, permanently. Amarr vs Minmatar, Caldari vs Gallente. That'd fit the lore, too.
How do you feel about that idea?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1394
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:17:37 -
[250] - Quote
so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability. Or that other alt in his corp who just helps the first alt move stuff around from contracts. Oh, and then there is that alt who does some ransoming to gain more ISK. Do I understand that correctly? vOv
@afkalt I don't know if that is irrelevant to the topic or not. If wardecs are meant to curb income potential, it should apply to each and every form of income. So far, some people like to exclude some forms of income generated in NPC corp safety.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1142
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:22:35 -
[251] - Quote
I wouldn't really mind, so long as it affects all the people equally and that is key, you don't get to just hit one group whilst protecting another when it comes to war.
I hazard it would deliver a wrecking shot to CCPs balance sheet though, but it wouldn't bother me or my gameplay style in the slightest. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1143
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 11:29:57 -
[252] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:@afkalt I don't know if that is irrelevant to the topic or not. If wardecs are meant to curb income potential, it should apply to each and every form of income. So far, some people like to exclude some forms of income generated in NPC corp safety.
I agree. I meant that just because player X does activity Y under the cover of NPCs, they should not be punished or pushed "just because" whilst player A does activity B under the cover of NPCs is rolling off freely.
My point was more the whole "income" thing is a highly selective viewpoint to preserve the actions of people taking full and complete advantage of NPC corp protection yet punish a subset of players. Whereas if the debate is really about making wars more meaningful and consequential that is thoroughly inappropriate.
Wars already disrupt player corp income pretty effectively to be honest, just people don't acknowledge it. Indys get hit hard, mission bears start sucking up NPC taxes or not running at all.
The proposition was to make wars better - via a stick. Yet selectively applied.
It is hypocritical to take the position of hating on NPC corps and war evasion (I refer not to you here) whilst using and defending those same tools to further their goals in game. The very notion is imbalanced by default.
If one suggests punishing mission bears, one must punish haulers/scanners/probers/traders/etc/etc. To do anything else is not about balance or wars but just to have a pop at the affected sub community (which should live in its own thread). |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12856
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:17:18 -
[253] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability.
Nope. I'm saying that, for a character that does their thing in a station, such as a trader, there is no need to rework their activity to be in line with risk vs reward.
They are not part of that equation.
Neutral haulers on the other hand, get out of that because the only real solution to stop people from using NPC corps to haul things would be to use the extremely heavy handed approach of barring them the use of certain kinds of ships, which I feel is quite uncalled for.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1763
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:25:54 -
[254] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:so, I have an alt who does some market and hauls contracts. He's, by your logic, not generating income and should be excluded from wardecability.
Nope. I'm saying that, for a character that does their thing in a station, such as a trader, there is no need to rework their activity to be in line with risk vs reward. They are not part of that equation. Neutral haulers on the other hand, get out of that because the only real solution to stop people from using NPC corps to haul things would be to use the extremely heavy handed approach of barring them the use of certain kinds of ships, which I feel is quite uncalled for.
You could go with something hilarious for haulers like intra "empire" import taxes.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
542
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:34:17 -
[255] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1143
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:41:19 -
[256] - Quote
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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
542
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:50:53 -
[257] - 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 -
[258] - 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
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4411
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 02:33:47 -
[259] - Quote
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.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
544
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 02:42:45 -
[260] - 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
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12863
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 03:37:00 -
[261] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:If the intended result of this proposal is to kill small corporations, it will definitely succeed at it.
One wonders on what merit those small PvE corps that depend on dec dodging exist in the first place.
As far as personal income, making player corps worth fighting for would incentivize people to not recruit so one sidedly, and then they'd be capable of fighting back.
Would it destroy the current paradigm of highsec corps? Probably, but that's not a bad thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1395
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 05:48:26 -
[262] - Quote
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.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
546
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:06:17 -
[263] - 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
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1395
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:16:40 -
[264] - Quote
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.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4413
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:33:31 -
[265] - Quote
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 high-time some of the larger corporations were forced out into low-sec.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
546
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 06:43:59 -
[266] - 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 -
[267] - 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
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12865
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 07:15:25 -
[268] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: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.
So you're telling me that this would also help break up trade hubs into smaller localized areas? Beautiful.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1395
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 07:18:28 -
[269] - Quote
I have profound doubts that this would happen. It is already difficult to sell many things in Amarr, compared to Jita. Even more fragmentation would just lead to even less sales and ultimately and quickly back to concentration. So, if you wanted to try and set up a hub, you'd bind money there, lose money there to taxes/fees and ultimately have to ship to a big hub anyways and lose money on transportation and fees/taxes again.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4414
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 13:03:35 -
[270] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Please read everything before you proceed to place your foot in your mouth... NPC - 20% tax (no WarDec), Social - 10% tax ($50m ISK setup, 20 players max, no WarDec), Corporation - 0% tax ($200m ISK setup, 10 players min, WarDec). Unless you updated this somewhere other than the OP(s)?
So basically my incentive is to establish my own corporation for $50m ISK and pay a flat 10% CONCORD tax to save the 1% over the cost of remaining in a NPC corporation (which is increasing to 20%). If I'm already fine with paying 11% in a NPC corporation, what would be the possible incentive to get me to spend $200m ISK to setup a 0% taxable corporation that requires a minimum of 10 players and can then be WarDec'd?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
548
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 17:57:41 -
[271] - 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
|
Count Szadek
Apex Security and Innovations
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 09:33:14 -
[272] - Quote
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. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
606
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 13:41:38 -
[273] - Quote
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? |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2200
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:16:04 -
[274] - Quote
Kick players from NPC corps after 60 days never to return, OR allow NPC corps to be wardecced. Also, have wars follow players who drop corp/alliance.
Once those exploits are first closed then we can talk about tweaking around the edges of war mechanics Until those core issues are dealt with though, wars are fundamentally broken and any other concepts nothing short of fapping.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1145
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:50:28 -
[275] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Kick players from NPC corps after 60 days never to return, OR allow NPC corps to be wardecced. Also, have wars follow players who drop corp/alliance.
Once those exploits are first closed then we can talk about tweaking around the edges of war mechanics Until those core issues are dealt with though, wars are fundamentally broken and any other concepts nothing short of fapping.
F
Where would they go if removed from NPC corp? Can't really do away with them as they need to go somewhere. I agree that NPC corps should not be the warm and cozy homes they are for so many.
Personally I'm more of the desire to see player corps being buffed to make them more attractive. Things like mining bonuses just for being in corp for x days / months , mission bonuses with a similar structure, maybe manufacturing speed increases, so sorts of things. Make being in a player corporation a competitive necessity (for those who need every penny to be optimized) and it should provide plenty of incentive to stay out of NPC corps for most players.
In my opinion people who would still refuse to leave their NPC corps at that point would be doomed to quit Eve eventually and won't be a problem forever. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
622
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 09:36:57 -
[276] - 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
|
Count Szadek
Apex Security and Innovations The Angry Fellows
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:17:10 -
[277] - Quote
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 |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
646
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:36:18 -
[278] - 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
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
924
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:40:40 -
[279] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald has rather jumped into this thread which makes any rational discussion a bit difficult. Noragen you have some good ideas here and all credit to you. The first thing is that we need to get away from slagging matches, you want good fights and I believe that some of the people you war dec do too, there are others that want none of it.
My attitude is not to go off and shoot anything that moves, I want a reason to shoot someone, so far I have not found anyone has got up my nose enough to warrant a personal crusade. I have an attitude to get in the way of the Goons screwing over hisec and am sorting out alts that will sit in NPC corps to do just that. I like many people have got to a cannot really be bothered mode, perhaps I am a bitter vet, but the thought of chasing off after people camping pipes in Cynabals interests me not at all and I am not having a dig when I say that, you are doing what is right for you and good luck to you.
I made a post on POH's C&P thread asking if they do any research on the people they dec, they are mainly US and we have no active US players, they are in NPC corps, POH have had two people on during the period I am active, my bemusement was more along the lines of what is the point? It seems just like a complete waste of 50m to me.
I talk about the I cannot be bothered bit because it is very important to what you want in the game, I don't see any fun in it for me, I have had my fill with what I call GTFO ships like the Cynabal's when I was in 0.0, I seriously cannot be bothered, when vimsey makes that point that you can set up to kill them well yes, except that I have no interest in doing it.
The new structures and some of the affects might change this in forcing a real fight I hope so, however not with hisec in its current form, lots of small corps and virtual corps, it is just not going to happen. I thought that I could start to develop an alliance that would grow in hisec, I soon realised that if you did that you would have no peace to develop to be able to fight and people have touched upon this here. I along with others tried to setup something in NPC 0.0 but before we could get it going we were carpet AFK cloaky camped by NCDOT. related people for 6 months which destroyed it and this is the issue with hisec. You do no have a chance to create something before you get jumped on and so people don't bother.
My disquiet is that I have nothing that makes me want to fight in this game, I also go out of my way not to do things that make me easy to get at, but I do feel I am missing out, but then I get to the point of looking at the costs the effort and how easy it is to tear down and I say, cannot be bothered.
I guess a lot of players have got to my point, having been in too many fail cascades and seeing people better equipped and in bigger numbers just able to stomp and not being able to do anything about it, so we just avoid and all your suggestions are more penal and are more likely to turn me off the game and not log in. And I do like to PvP, but I am not a great fan of going on roams to find something to kill, I can have fun doing it, but it gets stale very quickly.
What can we have in Eve that makes a player like me and many like me be bothered to jump into something and go for it, and it is certainly got to be more then make the attackers feel good about themselves.
So I thought I would give you it straight how I feel and many of the people I talk to feel, 15% increased yield, hell no, I use a Skiff with a DCU II and bulkheads and drone damage, do you think I could really be bothered to fight for something that gives me 15% more yield. And missions, increased LP, well possible, but again if I have to go up against people who are so much more numerous then me and have the same level of ships and stuff, I cannot win, so why bother. In terms of PvP I have gone for it against the odds when I had a chance for a kill, but I refuse to do it if there is no chance at all and why am I wrong to feel like that, the person who I amfacing has covered everything, better kit higher numbers etc., its like taking a fight and sitting there for the whole fight jammed, its about as fun as watching paint dry...
Its good that you are trying, but the people you want to push to fight are mainly jaded veterans who really don't care.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1152
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:45:02 -
[280] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Massive but informative wall of text.
You strike on many good points here. Much of what you said is precisely why I am not in favor of any stick methods of improving player corporations or war decs.
I've seen some good ideas over the past year in regards to this topic, but haven't yet seen something cohesively deal with all the issues.
You're absolutely right that any group that attempts to grow into something worthy of a war with the larger merc groups invariably attracts too much attention before it reaches it's goals, and ends up getting farmed into extinction by well organized groups. This plays off a very important issue though, any organized group that dedicates itself to killing people will always beat a group that lacks solid organization or members who are skilled in combat. Enough noobs in tristans can kill anything, but convincing them to try is another story. And even if they do try, you need a cat herder so they don't lemming in one at a time. This basically means you need a large group that is organized. You'll take losses all the time, but as long as you are also getting kills and controlling the area of space you call home, you're winning. I'd like to see more incentive for high sec dwellers to strive for that, mostly because, as you mentioned, I feel they are missing out on a lot of what Eve has to offer. The fact that I would get to shoot at them is a bonus.
At the end of the day, industrialists who do nothing else will eventually quit. Eve is really boring if that's all you do. Getting people into the action is necessary for long term player retention, and I personally think that needs to start in high sec.
I don't have any good answers on how to improve the situation, though I am constantly on the look out for them. |
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
655
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:53:16 -
[281] - 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
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
927
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 07:12:41 -
[282] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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?
I think that the capping of offensive wars should make it more focussed which would be better imo, but the issue as you said would be the problem of keeping a large group entertained and together, which is why you want to have the ability to ally on offensive wars. I disagree with that because if you carry out a war you have to judge if you can do it or not and you have to have the risk that someone will buy in mercs, the question after that is what will happen to mercs if people find that employing mercs is easily countered by the aggressor by bringing in more entities. From that perspective it would be a bad thing for you and I would not want to see a cap applied to offensive war decs nor do I want to see people able to ally with an aggressor, unless that is capped to one other entity only perhaps.
The important part is that the new structures will give a reason to fight and to buy in support because there is something sitting in space that needs to be defended, now it just a question of seeing if the value of that thing is enough to entice people to want to build / use them, and in doing so should they develop a bigger block to hold it. The question is that will the new structures change the dynamics, will it entice people like me to put one up and therefore defend it, would it entice us to grow bigger as a real entity and not a virtual one.
The issue we have is more of one of human nature and less so with mechanics, though they do have an impact, you guys are pushed into a corner of scatter gun war decs to find something to shoot just as much as your prey is forced to downsize into one man corps and virtual alliances to avoid being shot.
My perspective is also that Eve is losing the players who make up the prey groups, leaving the aggressors frustrated and the remaining prey equally frustrated.
What I think needs to happen is hisec develop some bigger entities to start having fun outside of hisec but based in hisec, that would change the dynamics of the game a lot. I cannot really give you real feedback on the mechanics because the issue is not as such the mechanics but the evolution of Eve as a game, but I respect your efforts.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12983
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 07:39:24 -
[283] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: My perspective is also that Eve is losing the players who make up the prey groups, leaving the aggressors frustrated and the remaining prey equally frustrated.
The game has never been more restrictive of the "predator" style players, but that just isn't enough, huh?
The problem isn't that the "prey" (carebears) aren't being glutted enough. They've never had it better, and your claim is that they are leaving.
The game grew faster, and had more players, when it was more dangerous. Every safety buff in highsec has hurt that, until we have what we have now. CCP has been doing the same thing for a decade, and it doesn't work. Time to go the other way for once.
Now, if you want to ramble off topic about structures, that has it's own thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
927
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 08:44:55 -
[284] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: My perspective is also that Eve is losing the players who make up the prey groups, leaving the aggressors frustrated and the remaining prey equally frustrated.
The game has never been more restrictive of the "predator" style players, but that just isn't enough, huh? The problem isn't that the "prey" (carebears) aren't being glutted enough. They've never had it better, and your claim is that they are leaving. The game grew faster, and had more players, when it was more dangerous. Every safety buff in highsec has hurt that, until we have what we have now. CCP has been doing the same thing for a decade, and it doesn't work. Time to go the other way for once. Now, if you want to ramble off topic about structures, that has it's own thread.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1154
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:58:31 -
[285] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kaarous Aldurald being Kaarous Aldurald EDIT: Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Now, if you want to ramble off topic about structures, that has it's own thread. Now to say that structures are not relevant to war decs is rather odd because on 25th April 2015 at 06:34 in the Ahala system you as a member of your corp took part in downing a POS with a lab, a compression array and ship maintenance array which was used by a helpful indy corp to compress ore for fellow miners in that system. So I guess those structures was not relevant to the war dec you chaps did?
I got bored, had nothing better to shoot at. He was kind enough to come and help.
I would have been quite happy chasing missioners in ravens or miners in mackinaws instead, but none were available.
From the current sounds of the new structures, without active defenders they'll be helpless. I suspect this will not remain %100 true as I feel it's too powerful for the aggressor. It is clear though that CCP wants structures to be very difficult to keep if left undefended.
This is very different than the current POS model as a large POS adequately fit is a deterrent to all but the most dedicated and well equipped aggressors.
This change will itself encourage the formation of larger groups as the numbers will be necessary in order to properly defend the new structures. This will be good for the aggressors as larger groups means more people online to shoot at, and you won't need to blanket dec like you do now to have people to shoot at. That will also be good for the smaller corps as they will be less attractive as targets unless there is a reason to go after that particular group.
I'm content to see how the new structures change the landscape in HS, because they most likely will. Once the new structures are rolled out and we can see how they interact with the current war dec mechanics then we can re-evaluate the war situation. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
928
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:29:57 -
[286] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kaarous Aldurald being Kaarous Aldurald EDIT: Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Now, if you want to ramble off topic about structures, that has it's own thread. Now to say that structures are not relevant to war decs is rather odd because on 25th April 2015 at 06:34 in the Ahala system you as a member of your corp took part in downing a POS with a lab, a compression array and ship maintenance array which was used by a helpful indy corp to compress ore for fellow miners in that system. So I guess those structures was not relevant to the war dec you chaps did? I got bored, had nothing better to shoot at. He was kind enough to come and help. I would have been quite happy chasing missioners in ravens or miners in mackinaws instead, but none were available. From the current sounds of the new structures, without active defenders they'll be helpless. I suspect this will not remain %100 true as I feel it's too powerful for the aggressor. It is clear though that CCP wants structures to be very difficult to keep if left undefended. This is very different than the current POS model as a large POS adequately fit is a deterrent to all but the most dedicated and well equipped aggressors. This change will itself encourage the formation of larger groups as the numbers will be necessary in order to properly defend the new structures. This will be good for the aggressors as larger groups means more people online to shoot at, and you won't need to blanket dec like you do now to have people to shoot at. That will also be good for the smaller corps as they will be less attractive as targets unless there is a reason to go after that particular group. I'm content to see how the new structures change the landscape in HS, because they most likely will. Once the new structures are rolled out and we can see how they interact with the current war dec mechanics then we can re-evaluate the war situation.
You see it the same way as me, now we just have to hope that the hisec players have not got too defeatist and can start to get into bigger groups, that might need a bit of a push and perhaps a little bit of time so they can get to a level that they can get organised enough to fight.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1157
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:34:50 -
[287] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kaarous Aldurald being Kaarous Aldurald EDIT: Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Now, if you want to ramble off topic about structures, that has it's own thread. Now to say that structures are not relevant to war decs is rather odd because on 25th April 2015 at 06:34 in the Ahala system you as a member of your corp took part in downing a POS with a lab, a compression array and ship maintenance array which was used by a helpful indy corp to compress ore for fellow miners in that system. So I guess those structures was not relevant to the war dec you chaps did? I got bored, had nothing better to shoot at. He was kind enough to come and help. I would have been quite happy chasing missioners in ravens or miners in mackinaws instead, but none were available. From the current sounds of the new structures, without active defenders they'll be helpless. I suspect this will not remain %100 true as I feel it's too powerful for the aggressor. It is clear though that CCP wants structures to be very difficult to keep if left undefended. This is very different than the current POS model as a large POS adequately fit is a deterrent to all but the most dedicated and well equipped aggressors. This change will itself encourage the formation of larger groups as the numbers will be necessary in order to properly defend the new structures. This will be good for the aggressors as larger groups means more people online to shoot at, and you won't need to blanket dec like you do now to have people to shoot at. That will also be good for the smaller corps as they will be less attractive as targets unless there is a reason to go after that particular group. I'm content to see how the new structures change the landscape in HS, because they most likely will. Once the new structures are rolled out and we can see how they interact with the current war dec mechanics then we can re-evaluate the war situation. You see it the same way as me, now we just have to hope that the hisec players have not got too defeatist and can start to get into bigger groups, that might need a bit of a push and perhaps a little bit of time so they can get to a level that they can get organised enough to fight.
Yeah I'm not expecting things to change quickly. First of all the structures are getting rolled out over a long period of time so we won't even see the full effects of the new structures for quite a while.
Once the new structures start to have their effects it will still take corporations a while to shift their attitude towards larger cooperative groups than currently exist.
It'll be a long and slow process but I'm interested to see how it changes things. It might not change anything at all, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
953
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:07:31 -
[288] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:[ I made a post on POH's C&P thread asking if they do any research on the people they dec, they are mainly US and we have no active US players, they are in NPC corps, POH have had two people on during the period I am active, my bemusement was more along the lines of what is the point? It seems just like a complete waste of 50m to me.
You were watchlisted but never undocked/uncloaked.
"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."
U-MAD Membership Recruitment
PoH Corporation Recruitment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1629
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:10:58 -
[289] - 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]
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:34:13 -
[290] - Quote
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.
|
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1638
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:34:07 -
[291] - 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]
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:46:57 -
[292] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I am trying to push for a way to drive conflict in general in highsec Really? Your OP makes it sound like you're just kinda mad you can't dunk on casuals all day.
If you want to fight a corp without wardec mechanics getting in the way, then move that corp somewhere that wardec mechanics don't exist.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1303
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:01:46 -
[293] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I am trying to push for a way to drive conflict in general in highsec Really? Your OP makes it sound like you're just kinda mad you can't dunk on casuals all day. If you want to fight a corp without wardec mechanics getting in the way, then move that corp somewhere that wardec mechanics don't exist.
Why? High sec is a target rich environment. Not all of us like being F1 monkeys.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:18:40 -
[294] - Quote
And if you got those people into lowsec, then Low would be a target rich environment.
And bonus! You'd actually be allowed to shoot all of those targets without having to pay for a single war. |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1306
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:30:16 -
[295] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:And if you got those people into lowsec, then Low would be a target rich environment.
And bonus! You'd actually be allowed to shoot all of those targets without having to pay for a single war.
Ok, so then you make reasons in low sec to draw people to low sec. Get low sec buffed, or adjusted or some such.
Why should I do your work for you?
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1552
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:31:18 -
[296] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:And if you got those people into lowsec, then Low would be a target rich environment.
And bonus! You'd actually be allowed to shoot all of those targets without having to pay for a single war. Which is exactly why those targets are in highsec and not lowsec. You've done a good job of highlighting why pushing people to lowsec is never a good answer. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:43:33 -
[297] - 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]
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:57:44 -
[298] - Quote
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.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 19:28:09 -
[299] - 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]
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
993
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 20:25:32 -
[300] - Quote
I am here to admit that Null and Low are very different when compared to high-sec.
1. People in high-sec care more about their ships -many entities in low/null rely on corp/alliance subsidies(moons/renter taxes)
2. People in high-sec either have alts in low/null or are already alts.
3. High-sec is a lot more crowded than low/null -every system has neutrals and one is more than likely an alt of your target
High-sec is a beast of it's own so a reason does not exist for high-sec entities to move to low/null-sec. Making such a move is corp/alliance suicide anyways because said group did not originally recruit for low/null.
Example: Being a null-sec citizen, why would I want my alt in high-sec to move to null-sec? That defeats the purpose of a high-sec alt.
"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."
U-MAD Membership Recruitment
PoH Corporation Recruitment
|
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1312
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:00:05 -
[301] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:I am here to admit that Null and Low are very different when compared to high-sec.
1. People in high-sec care more about their ships -many entities in low/null rely on corp/alliance subsidies(moons/renter taxes)
2. People in high-sec either have alts in low/null or are already alts.
3. High-sec is a lot more crowded than low/null -every system has neutrals and one is more than likely an alt of your target
High-sec is a beast of it's own so a reason does not exist for high-sec entities to move to low/null-sec. Making such a move is corp/alliance suicide anyways because said group did not originally recruit for low/null.
Example: Being a null-sec citizen, why would I want my alt in high-sec to move to null-sec? That defeats the purpose of a high-sec alt.
Very well written. +1
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
69
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:43:30 -
[302] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:read post 1 and 4. Right - you're trying to pin the casual's feet to the floor so they're forced to take it on the chin.
Ideally, high sec space would be for newbros, casuals and Red Frog. I see no reason to help people punch puppies. So instead, I say figure out how to get these groups out of the training wheels area instead of trying to find a way to punish them for founding a tax-dodge corp.
Your problem with not being able to shoot people? Solved. Your problem with people not HTFU and learning to defend themselves? Solved. Your problem with neutrals? Solved.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1312
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 22:07:55 -
[303] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:read post 1 and 4. Right - you're trying to pin the casual's feet to the floor so they're forced to take it on the chin. Ideally, high sec space would be for newbros, casuals and Red Frog. I see no reason to help people punch puppies. So instead, I say figure out how to get these groups out of the training wheels area instead of trying to find a way to punish them for founding a tax-dodge corp. Your problem with not being able to shoot people? Solved. Your problem with people not HTFU and learning to defend themselves? Solved. Your problem with neutrals? Solved.
Wow you are really disconnected from the kinds of people who live in high sec and the purpose of high sec.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
996
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 22:35:28 -
[304] - Quote
Aerasia wrote: Ideally, high sec space would be for newbros, casuals and Red Frog.
What game are you playing?
Have you been apart of an incursion community in highsec before? Have you been apart of a mercenary entity in highsec before? Have you been apart of a 1,000 man industrial conglomerate in highsec before?
Vice versa,
Have you been apart of a major null-sec entity before? Have you been apart of a major low-sec entity before?
If we are to combine all of this together, the casuals here are the low/null sec entities. The only people in low/null that don't deserve the "casual" award is the capital/super/titan builders and the JF bro's.
Everything I listed above I have done with the top 1% in Eve in their respective area.
Realistically the Eve you are trying to picture is not possible. There are far too many PVE man hours put into high-sec for anyone there to be considered a casual. Considering null is becoming more and more a barren waste land we can hardly EXPECT people in high-sec to randomly Drive content there.
Lets face it, there are very few things in null-sec that are better at making money than High-sec. However the things that are more profitable are so far off the beaten path that logistically its a nightmare. Yeah I could make 40 billion isk building a titan but how would I move it? Why? Yeah I could rat in perfect harmony in goon space but why? I could just run high-sec incursions.
Changing these isk gardens would shift the very foundation of Eve as we know it.
Please understand that High-sec is very unique and nothing like low-sec or null-sec. In my opinion high-sec shouldnt suffer because low/null entities are too far spread out.
BTW: I respect lowsec entities but you cannot compare them to the bigger null-sec blocs. When a null-sec entity fails they move to low-sec. One can hardly call that as BETTER.
"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."
U-MAD Membership Recruitment
PoH Corporation Recruitment
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:13:09 -
[305] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Changing these isk gardens would shift the very foundation of Eve as we know it.
Please understand that High-sec is very unique and nothing like low-sec or null-sec. In my opinion high-sec shouldnt suffer because low/null entities are too far spread out. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to kneecap highsec.
There's already more outright ISK to be made in Low, but the danger (and even the threat of danger) eats up all the extra profits. I'd love to see changes made to make lowsec a better transition between the infallible NPC police force of highsec, and the purely player blue blanket of Null. Get that balance right so that a small highsec tax-dodge corp can look over the wall and see similar groups making more money and want to move out on their own.
Take your own experience with highsec incurions: what would it take for whatever group you run/ran with to decide to move to low? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1552
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:36:38 -
[306] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Take your own experience with highsec incurions: what would it take for whatever group you run/ran with to decide to move to low? Concord protection.
To be honest, the groups I've run with stay in high for a number of reasons that if addressed would break lowsec.
Open incursion groups rely on unfamiliar faces, a method that doesn't work well without some form of mechanical restrictions or consequences. Similarly, the force of deterrence that is concord, when pitted against the willingness to suffer an assured loss of a capable fleet comp means strong, organized and well equipped interference is unlikely. No such restrictions exist outside of highsec.
Operating in lowsec on the other hand means having a closed, trusted group that needs to be fast enough to get a high profit before drawing unwanted attention, cheap enough to have those profits mitigate any potential losses (which being in a constellation marked for everyone to see would be pretty well assured if running in low became very common), and is willing to commit enough members to actually doing it at any point in time as you can't really rotate randoms in without risking the entire fleet. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 00:26:56 -
[307] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Concord protection. Well the old saw is that Concord doesn't provide "protection". Consider: If you were running a highsec incursion, and 30-odd Talos showed up on dscan, what would your response be? "Oh, it'll be OK - Concord protects"? Is it just the travel (i.e. gatecamps) that makes lowsec incursions undesireable? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1552
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 00:43:34 -
[308] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Concord protection. Well the old saw is that Concord doesn't provide "protection". Consider: If you were running a highsec incursion, and 30-odd Talos showed up on dscan, what would your response be? "Oh, it'll be OK - Concord protects"? Is it just the travel (i.e. gatecamps) that makes lowsec incursions undesireable? The more accurate sentiment is "concord deters" I suppose. Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular. We know people are able, but they don't. Something about 100k+ EHP targets with logi support not dying terribly fast, said targets putting being able and willing to put up a fight themselves, and a short time limit in which the opponent only needs to hold out alongside the guaranteed complete loss of the aggressing Talos'.
And of course it's only Talos' and not something beefier + their own logi and/or ewar support because of that guaranteed loss.
Change that dynamic by removing concord and the toolset for aggressors expands to whatever can fit through the gate. Thus you have to, again, factor responses to hostiles with capabilities far greater than in highsec and ship up and fit accordingly to mitigate the impact of losses.
Plus yeah... gate camps... sure. |
DD Barbie
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 00:58:23 -
[309] - Quote
You guys all cry more than my little sister. And she is a cry baby girlscout wimp.
You know there is a drought in California. Maybe I could get you all to come to my house so I can fill my swimming pool with your tears....( why drink them when you can swim in them and enjoy them over and over again)
Xoxo Double D barbie |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 01:05:41 -
[310] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular. You're right. Personally, I think that's more because they've got easier targets. But those targets do show that 100k tanks aren't an insurmountable barrier, even in highsec.
Your response points to what I'd love to see changed about lowsec though, the risk/reward balance. Even with a nearly 50% higher reward you know that the same evaluation for the pirates is skewed even further. Could that be changed though? Could the Incursions themselves (and by extension other forms of lowsec PvE) be modified to deter piracy enough to keep lowsec profitable for the Incursion runners?
Which isn't to say I've got the answers. But I think if a way to make lowsec a more attractive PvE/lifestyle proposition than highsec can be found, that solves a lot of the OP's stated problems. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1552
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 01:15:19 -
[311] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular. You're right. Personally, I think that's more because they've got easier targets. But those targets do show that 100k tanks aren't an insurmountable barrier, even in highsec. You missed the combination of factors it would appear, unless you mean to suggest a freighter holds similar mobility and offensive capabilities as an incursion BS. Also the logi support. And again, not insurmountable, just largely unworthwhile, partially because of softer targets, yes.
Aerasia wrote:Your response points to what I'd love to see changed about lowsec though, the risk/reward balance. Even with a nearly 50% higher reward you know that the same evaluation for the pirates is skewed even further. Could that be changed though? Could the Incursions themselves (and by extension other forms of lowsec PvE) be modified to deter piracy enough to keep lowsec profitable for the Incursion runners?
Which isn't to say I've got the answers. But I think if a way to make lowsec a more attractive PvE/lifestyle proposition than highsec can be found, that solves a lot of the OP's stated problems. The issue is the massive gap in regular behavior that constitutes the risks and creates logistical hurdles, thus justifying the higher payout. Work around that and you eliminate the justification for the payout (and barring some really clever solution, the distinction between lowsec and highsec). |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 02:10:39 -
[312] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:unless you mean to suggest a freighter holds similar mobility and offensive capabilities as an incursion BS. No, I only meant to point out that Incursion fleets aren't safe in highsec because they invulnerable - only because Concord invariably imposes a gank tax.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue is the massive gap in regular behavior that constitutes the risks and creates logistical hurdles, thus justifying the higher payout. Work around that and you eliminate the justification for the payout (and barring some really clever solution, the distinction between lowsec and highsec). By all accounts, the logistical hurdles are in place - but the payouts aren't. I want to 'work around' the fact that lowsec means far more work for slightly more pay on the PvE side, but more pay for less work on the Pirate side. |
Oxide Ammar
211
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 02:25:00 -
[313] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Proposal 1 Constellation/Corporation Structures ConstStructs There would be ONE of these in every single High/Low-Sec Constellation. It's function would be to boost current output of ISK, LP and mining yields by 15%(Figures may need adjusting) throughout the whole of the Constellation as well as have a minor tax cut to station trading. I also think that they could be used to display who has control of the area like sov but to a lesser degree. To take it would require a Wardec (or in Low-Sec yellow safeties same as shooting a person) and the use of the entosis link. It would only be vulnerable during the 4 hour window set by the Corp/Alliance that owns it and would enter RF for 48 hours giving the defenders time to plan and react. If it is RF'd with the war having less then 48 hours to go the war is extended until one side takes control of it after it comes out of RF. If neither side takes it then the war could theoretically go forever (mutual wars). Similar indexes would be applied for activity in the Constellation to make it take longer to take the Structure. A Corp/Alliance could only hold ONE of these making enough for smaller corps to have (and fight over) their own while making the most valuable Constellations a real source of conflict between the powers I could see arising from this.
CorpStructs These Would be a much lesser version of the Constellation version and would need to be anchored at a moon. A corp could Purchase/Build one and it would provide a lesser bonus of 5% yeilds and the same station trading tax cut except both would only be effective System wide instead of constellation wide. Should a Corp take a Constellation structure the Corp version would be rendered inert. A Corp could only hold ONE of these at any given time. They could be unachored and re anchored as needed with an appropriate cooldown. They could not be taken down in times of war or on the warm up period. If the corp were to be disbanded the structure would unanchor and be claimable by any interested party or vanish on the next downtime (or several later or never). A wardec would be needed to destroy this and it would be vulnerable during the 4 hour window to the entosis link just like the 'ConstStruct' and have all the same mechanics. However should it be taken on the RF timer by the aggressor instead of the aggressor claiming the structure and benefits it would simply blow up. Cost I think costs of building one of these should be roughly 300mil isk as a ball park figure and will be subject to change.
TBC on POST 4
So you basically wants to import nullsec mechanic into hisec so you hypocrites who are blaming care bears for dodging wardec to run more contracts to the other care bears who can't do their wardec by themselves.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
727
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 03:18:39 -
[314] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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.
Actually, what was proposed not changing much really. Or may backfire.
giving bonuses has 2 issues. As it can play out a few ways.
Not many will use them. Put up stuff, get decked, tear down. 5 times of this and at some point many might go well lets try this...not put up anything, stay low on radar and make current money. It can be worth the loss of profit to not deal with the crap.
Or it will be used, and abused. Not all corps get dec'd 5 second into the game. Some run no issues for years. this could be an isk faucet.
Or how I could use this would be to alt run the missions. As I read post 1 here is what happens:
my lp goes up and my isk take in. I am assuming bounty on rats and the actual mission payout by agent for the isk.
I might run 2 accounts, have one in one corp put this up, get the mission and well...after getting another alt in another corp into the mission room redock up.
Alt runs the mission to completion. other char turns in the mission and gets paid. I get the boosted LP, I get the higher agent pay. All I lose out on is rat bounty. Fair tradeoff....as a char who is basically docked 99% of the time draws all the heat of the war dec. If this pays out well enough to where I can lose this structure fairly often....this would go from idea to implementation real quick.
And it would have to pay out this well. If this is not paying well...no one will use it. Looking at 0.0 and CSAA's. They make the isk to justity the pita of having them. Makes their owner prime choices for attacks, usually involves intensive and long save ops (can reach alliance level CTA status real easy even). They are a mofo pita....but one taken for the payout to go but damn....look at the isk it makes.
Pays out this well and well.....with my setup I have a nice little faucet that gives the added benefit of that empire dec bear crew is spending their entire time fighting the wrong damn corp. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2108
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 12:52:48 -
[315] - Quote
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.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1749
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 22:29:20 -
[316] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1328
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:42:02 -
[317] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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
Moan moan grumble grumble
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.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Mobadder Thworst
Noob Farmers
669
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:05:29 -
[318] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote: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 Moan moan grumble grumble 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.
I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.
Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1328
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:15:15 -
[319] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote:
I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.
Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2156
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:21:52 -
[320] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. I may well steal this for my CSM platform.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1328
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:27:22 -
[321] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. I may well steal this for my CSM platform.
I'd vote for you.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Mobadder Thworst
Noob Farmers
669
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:41:24 -
[322] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. I may well steal this for my CSM platform.
Bring back can flipping as well and I'll vote for you...
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2156
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:06:47 -
[323] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. I may well steal this for my CSM platform. Bring back can flipping as well and I'll vote for you... You still can still can flip, game mechanics don't prevent it, it's just that people are less likely to mine into a jetcan these days. I suspect-gamed this Retriever into aggressing me (and dying, along with his pod) just a few days ago. (Full disclosure: I shot his MTU instead of flipping a can, but the principle is the same.) I also used to do it recently in ice anoms, but in those cases I just wanted the ice so I didn't shoot anyone.
So...do I get yer vote?
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:26:46 -
[324] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote:
I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.
Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. Would nerfing market driven activities accomplish anything other than generally higher market prices (and consequently nerf static incomes like bounties and blue loot in all securities)?
Also wouldn't a system that makes carebears want to fight (something I'm not sure actually exists or could be created) be the exact thing that wardecers would want as it actually assures them the fights they are after, even if they have no interest in the structures themselves? |
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1760
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:06:52 -
[325] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1329
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:18:11 -
[326] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote:
I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.
Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources. Would nerfing market driven activities accomplish anything other than generally higher market prices (and consequently nerf static incomes like bounties and blue loot in all securities)? Also wouldn't a system that makes carebears want to fight (something I'm not sure actually exists or could be created) be the exact thing that wardecers would want as it actually assures them the fights they are after, even if they have no interest in the structures themselves?
Your points are valid but what I'm trying to get at is that a model that encourages conflict over improved resources would take people interested in conflict and hive them something to do beyond simply hunting whatever prey they can catch. Obviously they would still be doing that somewhat, but if they are getting their fix elsewhere there's less incentive to hunt prey.
People looking g to avoid conflict would still have to be wary, but their predators would be mostly preoccupied in more meaningful fights.
Of course that's an idealized view of what I think would improve the situation, actually getting to that would be difficult to say the least.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14193
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:25:03 -
[327] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote: Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Dude, that's like my first post in this thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1329
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:42:26 -
[328] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote: Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Dude, that's like my first post in this thread.
Who has time for reading though?
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:44:50 -
[329] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Your points are valid but what I'm trying to get at is that a model that encourages conflict over improved resources would take people interested in conflict and hive them something to do beyond simply hunting whatever prey they can catch. Obviously they would still be doing that somewhat, but if they are getting their fix elsewhere there's less incentive to hunt prey.
People looking g to avoid conflict would still have to be wary, but their predators would be mostly preoccupied in more meaningful fights.
Of course that's an idealized view of what I think would improve the situation, actually getting to that would be difficult to say the least. I can definitely see the goal here but the usual issues aren't necessarily resolved.
Will to fight remains an issue because the barrier there isn't simply having nothing to fight for, but also believing one case win and that the reward will be worth the losses involved in securing that victory. A miss in any of those considerations becomes an issue, and with having the resource or structure acting as a beacon for potential fights the predator/prey mechanic isn't truly removed, but rather is just focused on fewer "prey" groups that in theory should be defensible best case and worse case these resources just get locked down by the owners of the biggest stick.
If the latter happens then lesser predators will do what they are doing now, pooling resources to become big fish or hunting easy prey for not being able to hold their own in the big boy mechanics.
As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14199
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:24:10 -
[330] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote: Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.
Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.
However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Dude, that's like my first post in this thread. Who has time for reading though?
I'll just claim that I was a visionary who was unappreciated in his time, like Nostradamus or Spiderman.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14200
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:38:47 -
[331] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.
Now this is just nonsense.
Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar.
If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1330
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:45:26 -
[332] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Your points are valid but what I'm trying to get at is that a model that encourages conflict over improved resources would take people interested in conflict and hive them something to do beyond simply hunting whatever prey they can catch. Obviously they would still be doing that somewhat, but if they are getting their fix elsewhere there's less incentive to hunt prey.
People looking g to avoid conflict would still have to be wary, but their predators would be mostly preoccupied in more meaningful fights.
Of course that's an idealized view of what I think would improve the situation, actually getting to that would be difficult to say the least. I can definitely see the goal here but the usual issues aren't necessarily resolved. Will to fight remains an issue because the barrier there isn't simply having nothing to fight for, but also believing one case win and that the reward will be worth the losses involved in securing that victory. A miss in any of those considerations becomes an issue, and with having the resource or structure acting as a beacon for potential fights the predator/prey mechanic isn't truly removed, but rather is just focused on fewer "prey" groups that in theory should be defensible best case and worse case these resources just get locked down by the owners of the biggest stick. If the latter happens then lesser predators will do what they are doing now, pooling resources to become big fish or hunting easy prey for not being able to hold their own in the big boy mechanics. As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened. I see what you're saying, those who believe they cannot fight will still believe they cannot fight, but will just be more poor. Those who already know they can fight probably won't notice much change.
My biggest problem with trying g to push people into null or WH space is that people who can't play every night reliably tend to run into problems in those ares. I myself, in my last 3 or so months with test, spent ~%50 of my time on move ops, ~%30 of my time shooting structures, ~%10 of my time ratting or running sites with corp mates, and ~%10 of my time actually in fleets shooting baddies or roaming.
It was the primary reason I left, when I was available, nothing good was happening, everything fun was happening g while I was at work or sleeping or hanging out with my wife.
Low sec obviously doesn't suffer that problem as much as 0.0 or WH but still there at least a bit.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1555
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:49:00 -
[333] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.
Now this is just nonsense. Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar. If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it. No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other. So long as player corps have no distinction, meaning the benefits of being in one are conveyed to all corps equally, there will be no advantage to staying in any particular corp during a war.
The optimal method of NPC corp dwelling will shift to 1 man corps and wardec evasion corps. Which is something I really have no issue with. My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing, so the whole point of NPC corps being relative isn't even addressing the statement I made.
Player corps have never been only compared to just NPC corps and never will be. So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14202
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:58:53 -
[334] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other.
No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter.
Quote:My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing
How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing.
Quote:So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless.
People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1555
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 00:10:27 -
[335] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter. Which isn't an issue if being in the latter inherently only gives advantages but never requires those advantages be defended. Rather as things stand now there are advantages distinguishing the 2, but nerfing NPC corps to the point of further compulsion towards 1 man corp online eliminates that barrier. That's a reality I'm fine with as it's personally beneficial, but it's certainly not a social or conflict improvement in itself.
Quote:How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing. No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."
Quote:People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction. Ignoring the unnecessary pejoratives applied to those who haven't fallen for the typical "only one way to play" BS, if this is true there are no reasons to change NPC corps as they are collectives consisting of largely those kinds of players. |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1330
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:10:54 -
[336] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm certainly not advocating the idea of forcing people out of highsec, I tend to consider it as valid a place to play as any other, rather I'm just pointing out that the current wardec mechanics had the same high hopes as the suggestion while filling in none of the actual gaps and further incentivizing dog piling on opponents. The only difference here is that there is now a game acknowledged throne for the top dog. As you stated, all those who would rather not compete go on as normal.
I'm not sure what the solution is, mainly due to the will to exploit whatever is put into place, but who knows, maybe the evils with this idea are lesser than what we currently suffer.
Sorry the part about kicking people out of high sec by making it utter crap to live in wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Feyd. I'm on my phone and out for dinner with my inlaws so I probably failed to make that clear.
I agree that there are no simple solutions, and I have yet to read a suggestion that fills in all the gaps without breaking g something else in some horrible way.
I don't claim to have an answer, and while I don't agree with all of Feyds ideas, I do concede it's very well put together. I think many of the things here have merit of their own.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14210
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:39:02 -
[337] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."
And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course.
If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1556
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 03:26:46 -
[338] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage." And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course. If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back. Who's post are you reading where you saw something about quitting? It wasn't in what you quoted. It wasn't in the parts of the post you didn't quote either.
Either way there isn't any reason for anyone to feel required stay in NPC corps if they are nerfed so of course they won't if the nerfs affect them significantly. Your opinion about attitudes based on the way someone else is enjoying the game holds no weight over other players. Each of them will decide what to do for themselves as they should if such changes were to happen, just as they do now.
If being in a player corp is significantly advantageous to me I will be in one, and I will continue to fight on the terms I decide to the extent of my ability to determine those terms. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2567
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:15:33 -
[339] - Quote
I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.
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.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1762
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:40:04 -
[340] - 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
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1413
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 08:24:35 -
[341] - Quote
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. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1797
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 09:36:02 -
[342] - 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
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1340
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:19:18 -
[343] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.
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.
Your idea is awful but let me explain why.
If that were the case, it would lead to corporations filled with veteran risk averse players (people who could defend themselves if they chose to). They corps would be immune to war decs under your system.
These groups would refuse to recruit newer players as it would lower their average security status, putting their war immunity at risk. Due to this, veterans would be immune to war and new players would be left to the wolves (I am a wolf). Seeimg as all otger targets would be immune to war, war dec corps would have no one to attack but newer players.
Overall, this would be the complete opposite of healthy for the game.
It's important for new players to get a taste of war, or some other form of spaceship violence, early. But they shouldn't be singled out as the only viable targets of war.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2582
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 02:13:51 -
[344] - Quote
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?
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1809
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 02:50:12 -
[345] - 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
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1433
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 05:44:43 -
[346] - 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? Highsec. There is no other mechanism to remove/attack a POS in highsec other than a wardec. |
Morgan Agrivar
Yamaguchi Holding LLC Dread Pirate Syndicate
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:02:15 -
[347] - Quote
NPC corp is 11%. I can put my own corp at 0% if I wish. It is like tithing to someone who doesnt do much, well except protect you from wardecs.
"Out of all the people who have tried to kill me, you are my favorite."
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1833
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 06:53:35 -
[348] - 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
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
430
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 19:45:05 -
[349] - Quote
SOV already exists and already destroyed about 90 percent of the systems in EVE so naturally we should duplicate the idea in the 10 percent of EVE that isnt a total snooze fest.
This isnt just my sole opinion CCP isnt scrambling to do something about SOV because it has been good for the game.
Homogenization has sent the biggest online game in history to its deathbed and it would swat a small niche game like EVE straight to the F2P graveyard.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1559
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 20:10:55 -
[350] - Quote
I still look at the idea and think most will conclude "why bother?"
Solo/small entities need not apply for reason of insufficient strength. Entitiles capable of taking the constellation get locked into an endless game of king of the hill which sucks up any profit gained by being on top. Non-combat focused entities of similar size do better by being able to apply their focus freely without incurring continual defense costs (whether via merc costs or internal defense routing players away from industrial/PvE focuses and the gains provided). Fight trolling instead of actual use is encouraged since owning the structure makes your PvE/Indy pilots targets.
The most beneficial arrangement for these structures as proposed is a large PvP corp/alliance with indy characters who don't undock and rely on out of corp (or better NPC corp) logistics. Meanwhile nothing prevents or even discourages hunting smaller prey. |
|
Joanna RB
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 22:04:32 -
[351] - Quote
Lyric Masters wrote: If you would seriously stay docked to a one-man wardec that wasn't active in your system, you are far too risk-adverse. Unless of course, you are AFK in which case you should garner zero sympathy.
If you would seriously even consider undocking a 2b+ ratting ship while under wardeck, you wont get any sympathy when you get locator agented and smashed open before you have the chance to warp out. If you keep your 2b+ ship docked, the wardecker has defeated you without even undocking himself.
Either way, its wardecker 1, you 0. There is no possible way a non-combat player can defeat a wardeck. Even if they fight and win, their operations are being interrupted and they gain nothing, the decker corp just reships.
Lyric Masters wrote: "Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.
This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
469
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 06:34:28 -
[352] - Quote
Homogenizing a game is ALWAYS bad for a game, removing real choice removes players permanently without gaining any new ones.
If you start with a bowl of mixed fruit you appeal to a broad audiance. If you change the bowl to only have variants of oranges you lose a lot of your audience because while you have 20 different orange variants you lose everyone that hates oranges. EVE has one apple, highsec space, in a bowl full of variants of oranges, if you dump the only apple in the bowl you will lose subs.
If your idea is implemented, it will cost EVE subs, it will negatively effect CCPs finances, which will permently hurt EVE.
Lets hold out hope that CCP devs are better at game design and direction than you are or we are in for problems.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
106
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 06:48:40 -
[353] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again) All points are still open for discussion A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too 1. Bounty payouts 2. Mission rewards 3. LP Generation 4. Mining cycle times 5. Station related fees It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed) The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?) I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think? Slightly increased refining yields Slightly reduced production times Ideas to discuss Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space? Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space? Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs It requires An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys ). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war. The goal of all this? Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them.
So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there.
-1 |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:04:22 -
[354] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again) All points are still open for discussion A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too 1. Bounty payouts 2. Mission rewards 3. LP Generation 4. Mining cycle times 5. Station related fees It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed) The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?) I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think? Slightly increased refining yields Slightly reduced production times Ideas to discuss Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space? Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space? Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs It requires An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys ). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war. The goal of all this? Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them. So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there. -1
Except that Sov sucks. Why would you want to hold Sov?
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:13:59 -
[355] - Quote
Joanna RB wrote:Lyric Masters wrote: "Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.
This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers.
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.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1646
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:38:36 -
[356] - Quote
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... |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:42:28 -
[357] - Quote
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.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1956
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 16:26:28 -
[358] - 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
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |