EVE Search - My Views On Hisec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3085	Posted - 2015.08.24 14:36:07 - [1] - Quote Large mercenary alliances would frankly devolve into hard core trade hub campers if faced with a hard cap on wars. Previously when cost multipliers were a thing declaring more than 15 wars was pretty expensive (though current mercenary alliances tend to be larger and betternfunded) so the large groups just focused on declaring war on lots of big null entities and blowing up stuff on the 4-4 undock because thats what gets you the most bang for your buck. A hard cap is reasonable if it's applied to corporations only like it used to be and is offset by something like a decreased cost per war (again like it used to be). When this was the case in the past it served as an incentive for war declaring corps to not be part of an alliance while also limiting their ability to provide content to a large membership. Decreased cost for corporations to declare war would also lower the bar for entry into highsec pvp. Also special consideration has to be given to wars that result from a corps dropping out of an alliance, alliances failscading often creates large numbers of wars and having the game punish you for your enemy collapsing by locking out your war slots would be pretty ******* annoying.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3085	Posted - 2015.08.25 01:06:39 - [2] - Quote We had large highsec merc entities when cost multipliers made declaring war on large numbers of different groups. The main difference was that nearly all of their discretionary wars were against the largest most freighter-rich entities they could find. So long as there's a large financial burden on an alliance declaring wars it's going to be beneficial to group up into large groups. Right now there's basically no value to being in a small group versus a large one right now. You have to shoulder the same kind of financial burden as the large group, with fewer people and a larger group can dunk on you at will at no expense to themselves via the ally system. In any situation where both corps and alliances share the exact same limitations alliances are going to win out. Trying to force them to be smaller via a cap on the quantity of wars without any actual incentives whatsoever to actually be smaller is not going to have the desired effect, it'll just make them go back to declaring war on Ivy League.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3088	Posted - 2015.08.25 10:51:00 - [3] - Quote I agree with Tora.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3095	Posted - 2015.08.26 16:32:30 - [4] - Quote Alekseyev Karrde arguably should have. His entire CSM candidacy was based on the foreknowledge that changes to wars were imminent and that representation was needed for everything to not be a ****-show. However his stance of "Voice no opinion to CCP about proposed changes, let them implement whatever they want and then see how it is afterwards" resulted in disaster.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3111	Posted - 2015.08.27 14:35:35 - [5] - Quote A unilateral surrender conceptually doesn't make sense. The entire point of surrendering is to capitulate to the aggressor in return for an end to violence. If the aggressor can't refuse, or can't determine the terms then it's not really a surrender at all. What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers. For example on declaring war an aggressor should be able to establish an isk amount they will accept a surrender for and set the duration of the mandatory post-war peace period which the defender can accept at any time or make a counter offer to. In an ideal world it should also facilitate the transfer of structure ownership too. Keeping the war bill in escrow and returning it to the aggressor if the defender disbands or to the defender if the aggressor disbands (this does happen sometimes) would largely end the issue of people disbanding their corps and reforming them to evade wars. Also you can already request allies. The real issue with the ally system is that it's totally unilateral, the defender can escalate near infinitely for little cost and no mechanical consequence for either the defender or their allies which if you're a carebear sounds awesone, but in reality serves as a massive deterrent to conflict between legitimate rivals. It's my opinion that bringing in an ally should allow the aggressor to bring in one of their own for the same cost. This would make it undesirable to ally into a war you're not committed to just to get a free war and to facilitate super awesome widespread conflict in highsec. Also anyone who wants continuously increasing costs for protracted wars is dumb. That would serve as an incentive to just sitting docked and waiting it out, because sooner or later your opponent won't be able to pay the bill. It's fundamentally an anti-gameplay concept.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3113	Posted - 2015.08.27 15:01:03 - [6] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers. I'm being completely serious here, but like the trade and negotiation system in Civilization. Half duplex, each side takes turns making offers until they are either accepted or one side walks away. This is literally what I want.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3175	Posted - 2015.09.08 04:15:44 - [7] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: And then you will start bleeding subs. The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP. It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically. Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3178	Posted - 2015.09.08 16:37:30 - [8] - Quote Funfact: When CCP Greyscale originally proposed Crimewatch the system he had in mind was one in which neither suspect flagged characters nor low sec status characters would have been able to shoot back. When this was met with widespread criticism from basically everyone limited engagements were born. CCP Greyscale was the kind of developer that the CSM exists to protect the playerbase from.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3178	Posted - 2015.09.08 17:04:33 - [9] - Quote I think that incursions should affect concord response times.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3182	Posted - 2015.09.08 17:53:14 - [10] - Quote CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.

Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3184	Posted - 2015.09.08 19:01:45 - [11] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Baby steps. I want to get elected to the CSM, not run out of New Eden by the Incursion Running community. The incursion running "community" is inherently going to be against any candidate that is even remotely pro-highsec PVP because they are either massive carebears or alts of people whose mains reside in other types of space that want their isk grinding alts to be safe. Those people won't support you unless you're either in favor of buffing incursions or are anti-highsec PVP. Your best bet is just to keep quiet about it, get elected then continuously mention it to CCP in private without ever saying anything about it in public ever again.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3187	Posted - 2015.09.09 04:27:22 - [12] - Quote Faction navies are the reason casual highsec PVPers join marmite instead of joining faction warfare.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3196	Posted - 2015.09.10 18:41:28 - [13] - Quote But seriously, kill faction navies and facpo. All they do is interfere with pvp situations in which either one or both parties have decided they are either okay with everyone being able to shoot them, or with being straight up at war with another group of players.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.