Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Flickstick Rick
Air The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 09:00:44 -
[61] - Quote
Hmm.
Yes I like a large amount of the OP ideas. Certainly a constructive base to work from and not unfair for anyone besides those doing 1 man wars versus alliances. |
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
479
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 11:13:25 -
[62] - Quote
A few years ago someone captured the essence of the Eve community with this cartoon: http://i.imgur.com/F2NHW.jpg I enjoy the industrial side of the game - mostly the strategic planning, supply chain management and market analysis required to succeed in business. In game, as in real life, I accept that the environment isn't going to adapt to me - I must adapt to the environment. I really don't care what the rules are as long as they apply to everyone - a level playing field. In that environment, I don't need to be good to succeed, I just need to be a little bit better than my competition. I've experienced my share of war in Eve - it's built into my business plan and I make allowances for losses. My strategy is simple - I win by not losing, by denying any aggressor their victory conditions. That doesn't mean taking time off from the game - I have characters in both highsec and nullsec and NPC haulers. My small POS can be taken down and stored in a station in less than an hour. I carry on as usual, playing my normal game completely insulated from the war.
If change comes, that's OK - I'll adapt and figure out how to prosper in the new environment. That's the kind of challenge I enjoy. |
Flickstick Rick
Air The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 15:05:26 -
[63] - Quote
Yep. Yep yep yep looks about right. And I for one totally agree the risk averse gankbears (basically a carebear who ganks safely for profit in empire) need a bashing! |
Count Szadek
Project Alpha.
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 09:17:25 -
[64] - Quote
I was going to make my own topic, but as this post is here i'll just reply. To "fix" wars, I think it needs to be a multi-part approach.
A) Limiting Wars B) Objectifying Wars C) Give Incentive to War Participation D) Give Corps a Way of Reprieve From Future Decs (Limited Time)
A) Limiting Wars: - This mostly goes for the Attackers but could have benefits to Defenders (Just haven't thought of a good one yet) My suggestion would be a Corp Management Skill. Without it, Corps and Alliances can only declare 2 wars. - Warfare Management: + 1 War Per Skill - Advanced Warfare Management: +2 Wars Per Skill - War Mongering: +5 Wars Per Skill - This would max out at 42 Offensive Wars
B) Objectifying Wars: - I like the structure idea. I would say a "Small Citadel" would work great here. Make it only deployable in Hi Sec Structure Info: - Attacking Force Must Maintain This Structure - This Structure Has 1 Reinforcement Timer - If Structure is Destroyed, Wars End - Structure is Vulnerable 2 Hours Per Day Per Offensive War (Attacker can choose but can get to 24 hours if enough wars) - All War Targets May Attack During ALL Vuln Times - Structure Can Have Ships Dock, Repair, Fit, and Provide War Intelligence (LVL 4 / 5 Locate AI with VERY Short Cooldown) Winning the War: - Attackers Win By Defenders Surrender or War Structure Destruction* (Defenders are not required to own, however if they have one, it can be destroyed to win the war) - Defenders Win By Attack Surrender or War Structure Destruction - Defenders Also Are Allied With All Other Wartargets of Attackers - No Allies Into War Directly - These Groups Can Declare War on the Attacking Force - You Can Not Declare War on an Entity That is an Ally From Existing War(s). If a Corp Would Join an Alliance That Would Circumvent This, It would be blocked or delayed until after the war.
C) Give Incentive to War Participation (More so for the Defenders): - I suggest a new "WarPoint" system (similar to LP but is much smaller quantity of points) store for wardecs. - This WP Store Can be accessed from Journal Tab or a new Warfare Window Rewards Include Ship SKINS, War-Themed Clothing, Notoriety Medals (Shown in Decorations), etc. (All Cosmetic) - Notoriety Medals would be something along the lines of "HAC Pilots: [X] Kills with HACs" and the X changes over time. Winnings: - Win the War: 10 WP to All Members of Attackers - War is a Draw: 5 WP to ALL Attackers and Defenders - Lose the War: You Surrendered or Lost a Structure
D) Give Corps a Way of Reprieve From Future Decs (Limited Time): - Wars Can No Longer Be Chained. - Declaring War Last 1 Week, Win Lose or Draw Attackers: - If you Win, You may Redeclare After 2 Weeks - If you Draw, You may Redeclare After 4 Weeks - If You Lose, You may Redeclare After 5 Weeks Defenders: - If You Win, You are not declarable for 5 weeks by ANY Attacker - If you Draw, You are not declarable for 4 weeks by ANY Attacker - If you Lose, You are not declarable for 2 weeks by ANY attacker Declaring war voids the above defender invuln per Concord Policy - If you have multiple wars - the remaining wars will still remain, however you will not be able to obtain more - "Defender Invuln" has a 5 week COOLDOWN to prevent alt corp war trickery |
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 23:34:57 -
[65] - Quote
I think everyone is over-complicating this.
Just allow player corps to opt-out of the war dec system. IGÇÖd suggest putting a 6-month or annual timer on before the corp can elect to change status again. Inactive corporations would lose their status when the timer runs out.
We all know the war dec system is used primarily for harassment and that players who donGÇÖt want to fight just drop to NPC corps while placing and alt in their corp.
The whole thing is stupid.
EVE's player base has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Its time to be more inviting to a wider player base; EVE is big enough for everyone, including those who don't like involuntary pvp and gang r**e. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45454
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 23:41:34 -
[66] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:Just allow player corps to opt-out of the war dec system. IGÇÖd suggest putting a 6-month or annual timer on before the corp can elect to change status again. Inactive corporations would lose their status when the timer runs out. That would be fine as long as you are also happy that they have an 11% empire tax on top of their own and can't own any structures or use Corp offices and hangars.
As for the wardec system being used primarily for harassment, in all the wars that have been declared against our Alliance, not once have we ever been harassed by the wardeccers. Where is your evidence that they are harassing people as their primary aim?
Certainly the whole thing is stupid, at least in the forum when people compare playing a video game with gang ****. Thats not just stupid, it's pathetically stupid.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Count Szadek
The Scope Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 23:42:54 -
[67] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:I think everyone is over-complicating this.
Just allow player corps to opt-out of the war dec system. IGÇÖd suggest putting a 6-month or annual timer on before the corp can elect to change status again. Inactive corporations would lose their status when the timer runs out.
We all know the war dec system is used primarily for harassment and that players who donGÇÖt want to fight just drop to NPC corps while placing and alt in their corp.
The whole thing is stupid.
EVE's player base has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Its time to be more inviting to a wider player base; EVE is big enough for everyone, including those who don't like involuntary pvp and gang r**e.
I would be okay with this ONLY if they cannot use corp assets (ie: corp hangers, poses, citadels, etc.) also they should have a minimum tax (say 7% lower then the npc but not 0%) risk vs reward |
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 00:12:07 -
[68] - Quote
Poor choice of words on my part Scipio, IGÇÖll give you that.
My point is, that a large portion of the EVE player base always has and always will avoid involuntary PVP. And another large portion insists on harassing them or limiting their access to the game's content to the point where it just isn't fun.
It was that way in 2006 when I started and still is today. Just accept it; and move on. "carebear" or "hardcore" they all pay the same money - to each their own I say. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
198
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 01:32:28 -
[69] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:I think everyone is over-complicating this.
Just allow player corps to opt-out of the war dec system. IGÇÖd suggest putting a 6-month or annual timer on before the corp can elect to change status again. Inactive corporations would lose their status when the timer runs out.
We all know the war dec system is used primarily for harassment and that players who donGÇÖt want to fight just drop to NPC corps while placing and alt in their corp.
The whole thing is stupid.
EVE's player base has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Its time to be more inviting to a wider player base; EVE is big enough for everyone, including those who don't like involuntary pvp and gang r**e.
This is a bad idea.
Chiefly because players can already do this by not having a corp in the first place, only in your system I'm assuming they get to keep the full benefits of owning a corp, including anchoring structures, corp hangars, setting their own taxes, and med cloning even in stations without cloning facilities. If this happens, there will never be another hisec war. I know if I could opt out of getting decced and still keep all those benefits I'd do it immediately because hey, who would be around for me to dec that didn't also do the same thing? All my hisec assets would be invincible and I could still happily go shoot people in lower sec space without having to deal with the occasional wardec.
I'd just have to remember to go shoot up every POCO in site before I did it and have endless tax revenue that could never be taken away.
If not, then you're basically just closing your corp in the first place and having everyone join an NPC corp.
In which case... just do that and create a chat channel and don't wast the time of CCPs engineers so you can have some letters next to your name and a fun icon in your bio. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3593
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 03:06:38 -
[70] - Quote
Corps can already opt out of decs. All they need is a chat channel and name it Corp chat.
The gameplay surrounding actual corps is that you get some perks but you can be attacked by players. Building castles and defending them against those trying to knock them over. Thats not limiting content, that IS the content the game was built around.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 03:12:44 -
[71] - Quote
If you assume that no one will fight if the option exists to opt out, then the game is already doomed. That means that no one enjoys it. But GÇô thatGÇÖs not true, plenty of people do.
The insistence on everyone participating in PVP or being restricted is ridiculous and greatly limits the player base.
I have 2 main characters, when I log into one I have time and intention to fight with you. When I log into the other I donGÇÖt and just want to be left alone. I appreciate all aspects. And yes I'm still going to keep them both in player corps mainly just so I can have accessible shared assets for all my alts and a few friends.
Some people do just one or the other and thatGÇÖs fine too.
IGÇÖm not in competition with you, I donGÇÖt have the time for it and I donGÇÖt care. ItGÇÖs a game, a game IGÇÖve played on and off for 10 years. I play for my enjoyment GÇô not yours.
The sooner CCP realizes that, the better off weGÇÖll all be.
That is assuming they reinvest the money in EVE and not some other venture... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3593
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 03:54:35 -
[72] - Quote
But you are in competition with me, and everyone else everytime you touch the market.
By playing this game you are signing up for pvp in its many forms. The game was actually doing much better when wardecs were less restricted. You said yourself, wardecs have been hard on some players since 2006, when the playerbase was growing every year.
The safer we make players, the faster this game dies.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45455
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 07:32:15 -
[73] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:My point is, that a large portion of the EVE player base always has and always will avoid involuntary PVP. This is a perfectly fine choice if that's how any player wants to play the game. We are all free to make our choices.
The game even provides ways to completely avoid wardecs - simply by being in an NPC Corp.
Alternatively, during any wardec Corps can go wormhole diving, into lowsec, NPC nullsec, especially now they can just move away from trade hubs and routes and play quite safely in highsec. They can use alts and soon just roll an alpha account and play on that.
Nothing about wardecs restricts the choices people can make in the game. It just potentially brings consequences because other players, with exactly the same rights to choose how they play, prefer pvp in highsec.
There's no right and wrong. All the play styles that are within the rules are equally valid.
Quote:And another large portion insists on harassing them or limiting their access to the game's content to the point where it just isn't fun. Where's your proof of harassment? There were stats published some time ago showing that 70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all. That hardly seems like harassment when the aggressors don't even come in contact with the defenders at all during a week of play.
But where is this harassment?
From my perspective, calling for nerfs to other players style of play is pure hypocracy. It comes from a belief that only you have a right to choose how you want to play and other players don't have that same right. Thankfully the game doesn't actually work that way and hopefully never will.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1061
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:51:06 -
[74] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:The totals for the year so far (as at the end of last week):
POCOS: 2571 POS: 1332 Citadel: 131
Total structures killed: 4034 Average structure kills per week: 91
Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets, or who want to remove assets and as the above shows, there's a lot of structures being destroyed in highsec. Your information is incomplete and lacks anything that gives it relevance. Just before I posted this I did a quick count on a randomly selected portion of the war dec list and the extrapolated the result for the entire list and that yields more than 1,100 corps in high sec under war dec this week alone. Because non -scientific and only this week not the entire 11 months so we put in a huge error factor and say somewhere between 600 and 800 corps are under war dec during any given week. So you have 91 structures killed in a week where 600 to 800 corps were under war dec. No matter how you add that up and no matter how you try to spin it the numbers say that structures are a minor factor in the overall war dec picture.
No one here has ever disputed that structures die as a result of war, but then structures dying is not the important thing here. Were those structures the only reason why war was declared? were the structures themselves even a major factor in the decision to declare war? Those are also important facts that we need to consider and your stats simply cannot give us that information. |
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:46:03 -
[75] - Quote
To your point Daichi and yours Scipio about this being a PVP game and anyone who doesnGÇÖt like that is asking for special treatment I completely disagree.
I mean your right GÇô that is how EVE works, IGÇÖm saying it shouldnGÇÖt work that way and would attract / retain a lot more people if it was altered.
Countless options exist for unregulated PVP, just one highly limited option for those who want to just be left alone.
ItGÇÖs a sandbox, and to use the kid analogy a lot of people simply donGÇÖt want to play in a sandbox with their friends only to have their sandcastle smashed by a gang of bullies that they don't like and don't want to play with.
And yes, you can always avoid the war by dropping to an NPC corp, and losing (or pulling) their assets in space, but thatGÇÖs just harassment, its griefing. Anyone who avoids war obviously doesnGÇÖt want to play; youGÇÖre forcing it on them. The proof is in your stats: 70-80% have no losses, these are the people who have neither the inclination and/or the numbers to defend themselves.
You say GÇ£well just stay in an NPC corpGÇ¥. Oh look at this cool new feature, you can have a Citadel now GÇô oh, but not you; you canGÇÖt have it. A POS, nope. Just want to organize or share your stuff? GÇô nope, you canGÇÖt have that either. Not unless you let me bully you.
It's not just high sec war either, it's the griefing in general that the game embraces .
IMO, ThatGÇÖs BS; they pay the same money you and I do and are equally important to the future success of EVE. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19003
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:09:28 -
[76] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:but thatGÇÖs just harassment, its griefing no it isnt.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
178
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:27:16 -
[77] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:To your point Daichi and yours Scipio about this being a PVP game and anyone who doesnGÇÖt like that is asking for special treatment I completely disagree.
I mean your right GÇô that is how EVE works, IGÇÖm saying it shouldnGÇÖt work that way and would attract / retain a lot more people if it was altered.
Countless options exist for unregulated PVP, just one highly limited option for those who want to just be left alone.
ItGÇÖs a sandbox, and to use the kid analogy a lot of people simply donGÇÖt want to play in a sandbox with their friends only to have their sandcastle smashed by a gang of bullies that they don't like and don't want to play with.
And yes, you can always avoid the war by dropping to an NPC corp, and losing (or pulling) their assets in space, but thatGÇÖs just harassment, its griefing. Anyone who avoids war obviously doesnGÇÖt want to play; youGÇÖre forcing it on them. The proof is in your stats: 70-80% have no losses, these are the people who have neither the inclination and/or the numbers to defend themselves.
You say GÇ£well just stay in an NPC corpGÇ¥. Oh look at this cool new feature, you can have a Citadel now GÇô oh, but not you; you canGÇÖt have it. A POS, nope. Just want to organize or share your stuff? GÇô nope, you canGÇÖt have that either. Not unless you let me bully you.
It's not just high sec war either, it's the griefing in general that the game embraces .
IMO, ThatGÇÖs BS; they pay the same money you and I do and are equally important to the future success of EVE. So why do people get toys that they can use to compete with me, but I'm not allowed to fight them for it? A POS and EC are cheaper than building in a station, and Citadels can offer lower refining tax/brokers fees than mine. If they want to compete with me, why is there no counter? Since you clearly seem to support unwardeccable citadels and POS, as you complain you can't use them in an NPC corp. If you want the reward of free use of citadel services and the power to charge others for it, you must accept the risk of wardecs.
I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
|
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:03:38 -
[78] - Quote
I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system. That is exactly what I propose.
If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, thatGÇÖs when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.
BTW: your name and signature are hilarious.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3597
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:14:37 -
[79] - Quote
They pay money to play the game as it is. If they don't like the way it is, don't pay and don't play. Your idea wont save the game. It will kill it faster. The types of player you are trying to attract are the ones who get bored and quit. The players youre shitting on are the ones who play this game for life.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:54:21 -
[80] - Quote
IGÇÖm not trying to **** on anyone man, thatGÇÖs my whole point. IGÇÖve been playing this game on and off for 10 years and IGÇÖm exactly the kind of player YOU want to **** on. Your right about one thing though, "that type" is subjected to constant greifing and harassment and restrictions which does result in them quitting faster in general.
What IGÇÖd like to see, and what I truly believe would help EVE grow beyond its current entrenched player base, is the concept of voluntary association in high sec. You would be free of unwanted aggression (except for the suicide gank, which I would nerf but not eliminate).
Perhaps, once in place, a system can be implemented to entice GÇô not force or restrict GÇô but entice people to voluntarily participate in high sec war GÇô which can be quite fun.
Example: A war dec would require the sign off of both parties involved.
You can entice them with restrictions such as number of combatants of each side, maximum fleet value, or prize money held in escrow, a bet of sorts. A beginning and end with established parameters of win and loss.
The only other change that may need to happen if war decs were voluntary is planetary customs offices. Since its just one per planetGÇô having them immune to war dec may be a problem, but IGÇÖm not sure exactly how that all works, IGÇÖve never run one. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45466
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:15:25 -
[81] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:The totals for the year so far (as at the end of last week):
POCOS: 2571 POS: 1332 Citadel: 131
Total structures killed: 4034 Average structure kills per week: 91
Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets, or who want to remove assets and as the above shows, there's a lot of structures being destroyed in highsec. Your information is incomplete and lacks anything that gives it relevance. Just before I posted this I did a quick count on a randomly selected portion of the war dec list and the extrapolated the result for the entire list and that yields more than 1,100 corps in high sec under war dec this week alone. Because non -scientific and only this week not the entire 11 months so we put in a huge error factor and say somewhere between 600 and 800 corps are under war dec during any given week. So you have 91 structures killed in a week where 600 to 800 corps were under war dec. No matter how you add that up and no matter how you try to spin it the numbers say that structures are a minor factor in the overall war dec picture. No one here has ever disputed that structures die as a result of war, but then structures dying is not the important thing here. Were those structures the only reason why war was declared? were the structures themselves even a major factor in the decision to declare war? Those are also important facts that we need to consider and your stats simply cannot give us that information. Maybe you should go back and read the point I made again. You seem to have misread it and diverted into something else all together unrelated.
As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point.
The random direction you went in isn't relevant to that and assumptions are pointless. Either validate your own point, or don't, but if you don't then it's worth nothing. It's just fantasy constructed in a way to support a preconceived view.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45466
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:26:04 -
[82] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system. That is exactly what I propose.
If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, thatGÇÖs when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.
Luckily, this is never likely to happen.
CCP's approach has always been that the more you want you play in the sand, the more sandy you need to be prepared than get. Inside the rules of the game that's not griefing, it's the game and it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:54:49 -
[83] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
CCP's approach has always been that the more you want you play in the sand, the more sandy you need to be prepared to get. Inside the rules of the game that's not griefing, it's the game and it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.
Can't argue with you on that one man; you're probably right.
I think its a dumb move on their part and I'll keep making my point too as long as this world exists.
Until then its going to be a slowly dying sausage fest.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3597
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:25:51 -
[84] - Quote
You are shitting on certain players. You just don't know it because you don't know how the market works.
You also have your facts arse backwards. Players who are shot at stay in the game longer. Players who isolate themselves from pvp get bored and leave.
The corp mechanic IS the feature to entice players to partake in war. As well as the structures you want to have for no risk.
Yet another carebear that doesn't know his arse from his elbow.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:49:57 -
[85] - Quote
WeGÇÖve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.
Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: GÇ£70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.
Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and youGÇÖll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because your harassing them.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45468
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 22:13:42 -
[86] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:WeGÇÖve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.
Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: GÇ£70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.
Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and youGÇÖll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them. How is using the rules in line with the design intentions of the devs, harassment?
Go read the 2012 devblog from the last time wardecs mechanics were changed:
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/changes-to-war-mechanics/
It's quite clear that the devs intended wardecs to be a viable career for dedicated groups. It's by design.
That's not harassment. Just because people don't want to be wardecced (I don't particularly like it either), doesn't mean they are being harassed when it happens.
Harassment is not allowed in Eve. CCP have a pretty clear policy on it and they ban players that do it.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
179
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 00:38:05 -
[87] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system. That is exactly what I propose.
If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, thatGÇÖs when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.
BTW: your name and signature are hilarious.
So again, if I have a fortizar with 0.2% broker fee and someone else sets up a fortizar with 0.1% broker fee, how do I kill off my competition? Those features of hisec affect me, and I should be able to affect them back in turn. Unwardeccable and structures do not go together.
I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3597
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 12:40:30 -
[88] - Quote
Ivy Axisur wrote:WeGÇÖve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.
Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: GÇ£70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.
Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and youGÇÖll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them.
If daichi gets decced i probably wont lose anything either but that doesn't mean i dislike non-consensual pvp, im just playing smart.
Non-consensual pvp is integral to the economy and is the centre of a pvp sandbox. Its essentially one of the pillars of eve. Its not the big reason players are quitting, its actually the reason we play.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1063
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 15:52:52 -
[89] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Maybe you should go back and read the point I made again. You seem to have misread it and diverted into something else all together unrelated. Perhaps your mind remembers what your fingers did not type. So here is a re-post of the entire relevant portion of your post.
Scipio Artelius wrote:I pulled the data, just to look at the use of wardecs to kill structures owned by player Corps: https://puu.sh/saskf/9528977ebb.png That's a summary of all structure kills in highsec so far this year. All player Corp owned and as it is extremely difficult to gank structures, almost completely using the wardec mechanics. The totals for the year so far (as at the end of last week): POCOS: 2571 POS: 1332 Citadel: 131 Total structures killed: 4034 Average structure kills per week: 91 Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets, or who want to remove assets and as the above shows, there's a lot of structures being destroyed in highsec. See section above in italics. I did not mis-understand, and I did not divert into some unrelated area of discussion. In fact you are the one that took us down this path by posting numbers that prove a point no one in this topic has ever disputed, that point being that structures die during war decs.
The real question that needs to be answered is simply this. Were those structures known to the aggressors before the dec was decared, or were they simply targets of opportunity discovered in the prosecution of the war? Yes this is relevant to this discussion. If they were simply targets of opportunity discovered during the prosecution of the war then they were not a relevant factor in deciding to start the war and that gets back to my point. Structures are not a significant factor in the process of deciding which corps to war dec.
Scipio Artelius wrote:As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point. I do not see anywhere in the OP proposal where a corp would be allowed to have structures in high sec AND be immune to war decs. In fact the OP champions the addition of even more structures by making them a required part of declaring a war. Ivy Axisur is the one that raised the possibility of having structures and still being immune to war dec. Given your basic attitude here this may surprise you but on this one point I agree. If you have a structure in space you are essentially inviting someone to war dec you and you best be ready and willing to defend it or lose it.
Scipio Artelius wrote:The random direction you went in isn't relevant to that and assumptions are pointless. Either validate your own point, or don't, but if you don't then it's worth nothing. It's just a preconceived idea supported with assumption, which is no support at all. It's not that hard to validate what you are saying, but it has nothing to do with the point I made above so not something I'm particularly interested in doing. I am not going off in an irrelevant direction. You posted numbers, my post was in reference to those numbers ONLY. 91 structures out of more than 600 active wars in any given week does not make them a significant factor in the overall war dec situation. Because they are not a significant factor in the overall war dec situation does not mean they are completely irrelevant.
In the hopes of getting you unconfused let me give you my basic position on this. I am not against war decs in high sec and I agree there are many valid reasons to war dec a group. In the face of declining participation in this game for LOL's or for padding kill boards are no longer valid reasons, see below on social corps.
Defenders need a victory condition that ends the war immediately once that condition is met.
The allies mechanic as we know it needs to go away it is broke as hell. It should be replaced with a real mercs market place where anyone can go to hire our merc friends and the relative size of aggressor versus defenders would be dealt with by using a sliding war dec fees structure. The larger the defenders in relation to the aggressors the lower the fees would be.
Now to social corps, I am in favor of these and they should be immune to war decs, in exchange for this immunity there would be some limitations. No structures in high sec, because they would be easy for anyone to kill I would allow them in low sec. Because of the increased NPC resources required to protect them the corp itself and everyone in it would be subject to a 10% tax paid to the NPC that controls the space they are headquartered in. This tax would apply to all sources of income throughout the entire game and it would include LP since they are in reality a source of income. Still working over other restrictions but I am not sure they are needed, and yes the tax rate could be adjusted up or down by a bit, I am not a fan of the oft stated 30% or so taxes that is simply to high and to be honest it is unfair and may have unintended consequences on the markets.
I have some concerns about these becoming a haven for illegal activities and I admit that I am at a loss when it comes to dealing this this. One possibility would be an instant Concord response to any and all offensive actions taken against another player or players, corp members would be excluded from this. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2916
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 16:19:47 -
[90] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point. I do not see anywhere in the OP proposal where a corp would be allowed to have structures in high sec AND be immune to war decs. In fact the OP champions the addition of even more structures by making them a required part of declaring a war. It's in the sentences that say:
Cap ITal wrote:The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region. And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed. The OP proposes that corporations be allowed to opt-out of a war by destroying a structure. That would make their structures immune to attack given you require an active wardec for at least 8 days to attack them in highsec.
This alone is what makes this proposal and all the similar ones dead-in-the-water. CCP will never give you a way to opt-out of defending your structure, even if you have to shoot something to do it. That advantages large groups far too much and completely undermines the flow of structure combat in highsec. If PL never has to fit weapons to their highsec citadel because they can blob their way out of any war and just let CONCORD defend it, there is a fundamental problem with your game design idea.
Donnachadh wrote: Now to social corps, I am in favor of these and they should be immune to war decs, in exchange for this immunity there would be some limitations. No structures in high sec, because they would be easy for anyone to kill I would allow them in low sec. Because of the increased NPC resources required to protect them the corp itself and everyone in it would be subject to a 10% tax paid to the NPC that controls the space they are headquartered in. This tax would apply to all sources of income throughout the entire game and it would include LP since they are in reality a source of income. Still working over other restrictions but I am not sure they are needed, and yes the tax rate could be adjusted up or down by a bit, I am not a fan of the oft stated 30% or so taxes that is simply to high and to be honest it is unfair and may have unintended consequences on the markets.
I have some concerns about these becoming a haven for illegal activities and I admit that I am at a loss when it comes to dealing this this. One possibility would be an instant Concord response to any and all offensive actions taken against another player or players, corp members would be excluded from this.
You are overthinking it. Social corps should be just like NPC corps (except with a name and some social functions of a corp like a chat channel) and then you don't have to worry about any balance issues given players can only do what they could do in an NPC corp anyway. There is no point making them worse than the NPC corps (like your insta-CONCORD idea or have high taxes) or players will just stay in the NPC corps instead.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |