Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cap ITal
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 13:10:47 -
[1] - Quote
So the subject of wars has long been a sensitive one much like cloaky camping. There are always two main sides. Those who use the mechanic and those on the receiving end of it. Normally both are hugely bias. In the case of wars the standard response comes to one of risk versus reward. And tends to go in circles pretty much the same as cloakers.
So lets break it down. Wars are a traditional and important mechanic for combat in secure space. There are many people who enjoy them and make money off them. Wars are also frustrating and often one sides affairs marred in controversy over risk/reward.
The problem on the risk reward side is that many entities use the war mechanic in a way thats at best unsporting. Often using a corporation of combat characters to declare war on a larger entity and target supply lines while keeping their own safe in unknown corporations or safe npc corporations. This is compounded when these players selectively pick their ambush places to have little risk to themselves often far from their targets home space and in areas that protect them from counter operations.Basically the risk to them is very little (at most a pretty basic fitted ship) while the reward is almost free reign of potential weak targets. When ever this is brought up these entities are fast to claim they are counter-able and they are totally fair in their activities.
While their is truth in their claims they can be countered or protected against its a case of practicality. To counter them requires far more investment than they have to expend. And that is the problem.
As such to rework and BALANCE wars I submit we directly link them to structures and citadels. For Entity A to declare war on Entity B They must have the infrastructure to wage war from, a base of operations. A citadel! This immediately removes the low risk for corps abusing the war mechanic and means they have to put something on the field. To take this one step further and make this a truly strategic game the citadel acts as a regional HQ. and you require one in every region the war is active. Thus meaning a Entity B can effectively counter a war far from their home via targeting the Citadel. 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.
To prevent the use of a single citadel to declare war on several Entities Each war Hq can only run the logistics for 1 war target. in the case of Astrahuas and 2 in the case of Fortizars. Concord has declared the use of Keepstars to control a war unsporting as such no keepstar has any effect on a war declaration.
This should bring wars into 2017. Remove a controversial mechanic while maintains its core traditions and need. While expanding Eve as a tactical game and creating more content for people actually willing to fight. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4851
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 17:34:36 -
[2] - Quote
...Which would completely gut every wardec group in one fell swoop.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18536
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 17:45:27 -
[3] - Quote
War's have been being pushed on the agenda pretty hard now for the last six months at least. No one is more Keely aware of the issues with wars or would like them sorted more than those of us who spend all our time practicing them.
We had a round table with the csm last weekend and hopefully should be seeing a war panel for the next summit.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agants
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3559
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 21:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have the exact same idea but with out the pretentious bull **** and whining about what's 'fair' and 'sporting' in an open sandbox.
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
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
136
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 23:02:46 -
[5] - Quote
I don't give a **** about it being sporting, but I do rather like the idea of being required to own assets to wage war.
I don't like the bloated sov-ish idea of having to own assets in particular space.
Seems to me it'd be totally OK for a wardec corp to be required to own one astrahaus anywhere in the game in order to blanket wardec the entire server, as that would give the people they wardec an opportunity to actually win the war if they can be bothered to scrounge up a fleet of combat pilots or hire mercs or whatever.
Because that's what its about, really. It's not about being fair. it's not even going to be fair. But there should absolutely be a defensive element to any and every war for both sides. You shouldn't be required to invest in all the infrastructure ever just to wardec people, but being required to defend at least one cheap thing in a place that's advantageous to you? That at the very least gives people you wardec a way to straight up beat your ass right out of the wardec in a straight up fleet fight. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:26:32 -
[6] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:I don't give a **** about it being sporting, but I do rather like the idea of being required to own assets to wage war. You shouldn't. One of the basic design goals of war declarations is that they should be available to everybody. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45131
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:53:22 -
[7] - Quote
The problem with all of the suggestions based around tying wars to structures is that they are blinkered by thinking that the activities of large, professional wardec groups need to be countered, but fail to consider everyone else that uses the wardec mechanics too.
By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.
That's hardly "fair" in a situation based on trying to suggest fairness for both sides.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
138
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:21:51 -
[8] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:The problem with all of the suggestions based around tying wars to structures is that they are blinkered by thinking that the activities of large, professional wardec groups need to be countered, but fail to consider everyone else that uses the wardec mechanics too.
By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.
That's hardly "fair" in a situation based on trying to suggest fairness for both sides.
We're talking about an astrahaus here though
Like, world's cheapest structure that requires literally no fuel just to exist.
To be super clear I don't care about professional deccers versus industry corps. I care more about wars having objectives that allow participants on either side to definitively win by force rather than by surrender or diplomacy. I don't think wardec groups need to be curtailed or countered. I think that entities of all size should have undockable stake in a formal military declaration of hostility.
So that both sides have an undeniable opportunity to beat the other in to submission.
Currently, that simply doesn't exist.
If a war is so lopsided that the defender can simply embarass the other, and WANTS to do so... there should absolutely be a mechanism for that side to respond to a wardec with a swift teeth kicking do they can get on with their lives in stead of having to swat guerilla remnants for the rest of the week.
Currently all of the control over cessation of hostilities rests with the agressor. The defenders should absolutely have a mechanism to beat the **** out of them and end the war. Static assets in space are the simplest way to do that. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3559
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:21:49 -
[9] - Quote
A wardec structure doesn't have to be a citadel, or even expensive. There could also be structures of different sizes with varying degrees of power to accomodate groups large and small.
But depending on what ccp do with watch lists and observatories it may become a near requirement to have a structure to carry out an effective wardec anyways.
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
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
428
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:44:48 -
[10] - Quote
So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. |
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1023
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:47:37 -
[11] - Quote
There are many valid points in the OP, however there are to many problems with it to support it so as posted you get a -1.
Scipio Artelius wrote:affect for "legitimate" reasons. Here we get to the core pf the problem with war decs in this game. First they are worthless outside of high sec since you can shoot anyone you want whenever you want especially considering that war deccing someone just gives them the chance to prepare a defense by refitting a POS / Citadel or mustering the troops to protect the most valuable assets.
And that brings us to the great lie of war decs, that being that there is some legitimate reason to war dec another corp,. I hear crazy talk about shutting down a competitors trade routes, restricting or eliminating their ability to source material needed for manufacturing and that list of reasons goes on and on. Because of alt characters, alt corps, NPC corps etc not to mention placing critical resource gathering or manufacturing in low, nul and worm holes a war dec against a well set up and well run industrial corp will never have any significant affect on those corps. In fact the random acts of the gankers and the inhabitants of low, nul and worm holes have a far greater affect than the war dec groups ever will.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the simple fact that war decs are simply a license to kill people simply because you want to kill people. I am OK with that but let us put down this crazy pretense that wars are actually about something else and call them what they are, in that light I suggest they be called a corp kill license.
Or we could simply find a way to make them a real war, fought over something that has meaning to both sides. In this light some form of a structure that one or both sides needs to have set up in space somewhere holds many possible options, but it also comes with many potential problems. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate
2092
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:57:54 -
[12] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me.
I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45133
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 13:43:26 -
[13] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:We're talking about an astrahaus here though
Like, world's cheapest structure that requires literally no fuel just to exist.
From the OP:
"To take this one step further and make this a truly strategic game the citadel acts as a regional HQ. and you require one in every region the war is active."
There are 23 regions with highsec systems. That's not just 'an austrahaus here'
Quote:So that both sides have an undeniable opportunity to beat the other in to submission.
...
Giving the defender something to attack is giving the defender the ability to just punch that guy in the face, take his gas can, and light him on fire with it. Both already have the undeniable opportunity to beat the other into submission. Defenders can even obtain and infinite number of completely free allies to assist.
They can just go shoot the wardeccer in the face, exactly as you suggest.
Donnachadh wrote:And that brings us to the great lie of war decs, that being that there is some legitimate reason to war dec another corp,. I hear crazy talk about shutting down a competitors trade routes, restricting or eliminating their ability to source material needed for manufacturing and that list of reasons goes on and on. Because of alt characters, alt corps, NPC corps etc not to mention placing critical resource gathering or manufacturing in low, nul and worm holes a war dec against a well set up and well run industrial corp will never have any significant affect on those corps. In fact the random acts of the gankers and the inhabitants of low, nul and worm holes have a far greater affect than the war dec groups ever wil In general I agree. There doesn't at all need to be the concept of 'legitimate' reason to declare war (hence my inclusion of the term in quotes). Yet it comes up time and again in these threads; and people actually do declare war with specific purposes in mind aside from the large, hub humping, professional wardec Alliances; and/or hire mercs to do the work for them.
There is of course, also the use of wardecs in order to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets.
For the rest, I also totally agree; which ultimately means there is absolutely no reason for anyone to complain about the possibility of being wardecced and no need at all to change them then.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
428
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 14:51:39 -
[14] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends?
There's a difference between PvPing in guerilla style warfare and getting kills, and not PvPing at all because the hostiles outnumber you. That said, nerfing the little guy in PvP will only have the same effect as raising the prices on wardecs did. It will force them into larger groups which will be completely unmanageable for indy corps, compared to a single wardeccer that they might be able to fight off. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2259
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 17:04:46 -
[15] - Quote
Some history on war decs.
War decs used to be a way that 2 corporations could settle their differences with ammunition. With the advent of the allies R us mechanics that is no longer true. With the rare exception of some hokey honor agreement - isk and free loaders flood into any healthy disagreement and water it down to meaningless.
Mercing used to be about being good at the service(s) provided and competing for the isk of CEOs that had a score to settle or some objective to attain. With the ultra cheap war dec fees the current best practice in the 'merc' business is to mass war dec and farm HS while picking up the occasional contract from random tools that are too daft to realize they are wasting their isk.
Sure sure there are a few crews out there breaking their backs trying to deliver a service, but all in all the current 'merc' business is actually a player farming business that took the merc name because no one was using it effectively anymore.
The freeloading mechanic made HS warfare pointless. The cheap flat fee killed the old school contract based merc business. The change to the watch list to keep super pilots in their pampered cocoons was just another nail in a closed coffin.
I don't think current HS pvp is challenging or interesting. It may be fun and profitable, but it sure isn't challenging or interesting. The current mechanics just don't support healthy HS conflict.
I'm not speaking to the quality of any individual merc, but the quality overall (that would be ability to conduct pvp beyond the solo farming gank) has been and will continue to decline. The current mechanics don't support being good. Let's be honest, actual HS conflict is rare and when it does happen FCs tend to bail as soon as they see the scales tipping away from them. Many fights aren't taken because of possible losses - both of ships in the immediate and members that can't come to terms with losses in the long run.
The mechanics are the suxors and need to change. My recommendation - role back. Get rid of the 'all aboard' free loading help. If a guy wants a piece of your conflict - there is a button and a fee for that. Go back to escalating fees. Raise the cost of concurrent decs to make carrying 100+ war decs impossible to sustain. These changes would bring back real cost and real choices as to who you war dec and when. With cost and choice - meaning will return to HS conflict and will return to being conflict and the current player farming hoo haw will fade into eve history. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2259
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 17:17:26 -
[16] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends? There's a difference between PvPing in guerilla style warfare and getting kills, and not PvPing at all because the hostiles outnumber you. That said, nerfing the little guy in PvP will only have the same effect as raising the prices on wardecs did. It will force them into larger groups which will be completely unmanageable for indy corps, compared to a single wardeccer that they might be able to fight off.
Actually (and factually I might add), the larger groups only became popular after the current day mechanics were instituted. The large groups are an outcome of allowing allies AND lower flat fees. Before these mechanics there were no large Merc groups in HS. The high prices made large merc groups impossible to feed, so they didn't exist. Low fees allow mass decs for large groups of player to farm HS with alts. The farming is casual, so an alt can log in and out on a whim, where fulfilling a contract took time and dedication and was not conducive to alt play.
Before the mechanics changed Repo Industries was one of the biggest merc outfits in HS and we had 100 members with probably 50 or so actives. Our limit on decs was 7 based on cost and ability to fulfill the contract.
After the mechanics changed - mass decs and large outfits became the cost effective way to go.
Your argument that higher fees would limit the little guy is only true in respect to the ability to mass dec and turn a profit. Back in the day the little guys had a blast taking on bigger fish. Magic Preacher was one of the best in this aspect of the game. Feel free to ask him if he used to have a lot of FUN under the old mechanics.
Really - ask him. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 19:47:08 -
[17] - Quote
I assume that you're omitting the fact that the base cost of declaring war for a corporation against another corporation was increased by 2500% in the changes you're talking about.
It's a combination of increased costs at the small scale and decreased costs at the large scale that created the financial incentive for mercenary groups to get larger. Pretending one side of that equation doesn't exist is disingenuous.
If you were to simply increase the cost of declaring multiple wars you wouldn't see a return to pre-inferno corp sizes because the higher base costs would still incentivize groups to be as large as they can possibly provide content for.
The best result you'd get is the current large groups shifting offensive wars to focus on the largest sources of targets while utilizing the ally system for free wars as much as possible.
If you want to restore some semblance of pre-inferno gameplay you'd also have to revisit the base cost of declaring war for corporations and more importantly nerfing the ever living **** out of the ally system. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:31:48 -
[18] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I assume that you're omitting the fact that the base cost of declaring war for a corporation against another corporation was increased by 2500% in the changes you're talking about.
It's a combination of increased costs at the small scale and decreased costs at the large scale that created the financial incentive for mercenary groups to get larger. Pretending one side of that equation doesn't exist is disingenuous.
If you were to simply increase the cost of declaring multiple wars you wouldn't see a return to pre-inferno corp sizes because the higher base costs would still incentivize groups to be as large as they can possibly provide content for.
The best result you'd get is the current large groups shifting offensive wars to focus on the largest sources of targets while utilizing the ally system for free wars (which they already do heavily) as much as possible.
If you want to restore some semblance of pre-inferno gameplay you'd also have to revisit the base cost of declaring war for corporations and more importantly nerfing the ever living **** out of the ally system.
Honestly, if we had the structure mechanic, assuming that deccing hands you a free structure that does nothing but sit in space waiting to be shot, basically a small pos preloaded with fuel that can't anchor any modules, we wouldn't need the ally system in the first place. Attackers magicing up allies would have to convince those allies to pay their own dec fees, and each one would have its own crap to defend. Defenders couldn't magic up suprise allies in the middle of the war without doing the same thing.
The ally system is a band aid on an already broken mechanic, an attempt to balance things between defender and attacker. I'm suggesting actually just balancing attacker and defender by ensuring both have something mission critical to shoot at and defend, and simply giving them that for free to anchor if they don't have pre-existing assets in place. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18569
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:53:37 -
[19] - Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 21:17:32 -
[20] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent. Don't get me wrong now I'm glad this conversation is happening more and more but I'm really not into linking war too closely to structures, I'm explicitly not in null sec for this very reason.
I just can't think of a much better way to create that sort of objective imperative. What are the other options? ISK value destroyed? Still prioritizes the people with less assets in space. Some kind of kill count system? Seems like hell to balance/too easy to game.
I mean I'm trying real hard to address the issues with wars without using structures as a basis and I can't come up with anything. I'd love to hear some alternate solutions that don't totally screw over deccers or defenders and create a more equitable system in which pilots at war are more encouraged to shoot each other. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45134
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 21:33:17 -
[21] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent. Don't get me wrong now I'm glad this conversation is happening more and more but I'm really not into linking war too closely to structures, I'm explicitly not in null sec for this very reason. I just can't think of a much better way to create that sort of objective imperative. What are the other options? ISK value destroyed? Still prioritizes the people with less assets in space. Some kind of kill count system? Seems like hell to balance/too easy to game. I mean I'm trying real hard to address the issues with wars without using structures as a basis and I can't come up with anything. I'd love to hear some alternate solutions that don't totally screw over deccers or defenders and create a more equitable system in which pilots at war are more encouraged to shoot each other. The only way I see tying anything into a structure being an ok approach, is to provide advantage in having a Citadel/other structure.
Most commonly, as in this thread, it's always a stick approach designed to require more in order to do what can be done now. Why would the wardeccer side of the equation be happy about that?
Instead it should be a carrot approach. If you want wardeccers to have a structure in space, give it a war related use. Give them some benefit from having it that aids their activities; and not just something that encourages larger and larger wardec entities. There should be play for small groups, even encouragement for them.
Same on the defender side. Options to refit a Citadel in a war that provides them some benefit to their activities.
Make the play engaging, not just a road block with no real war related purpose other than wardec groups become bigger and declare war on smaller groups.
Then, leave victory conditions out of it. Objectives in declaring war can vary widely. That's not something the game should really track. Players can handle that fine.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:01:09 -
[22] - Quote
Adding carrots doesn't really address the underlying issue though.
Only the agressor has the ability to win a war. They control cessation of hostilities. They choose targets of opportunity.
Defenders don't have any mechanisms to win a war. They only have mechanisms to survive a war.
Any smart attacker has nothing at risk. Defenders are, however, always at risk. They can't simply be smarter defenders. At best they can incur the logistical challenge of trying to pack up all their stuff in the first 24 hours to make it a straight up ship fight. Even then, the agressor has already inflicted significant economic damage just by forcing them to do so.
Even in cases where neither side owns assets in space. Attackers control cessation of hostilities.
Defenders should have a mechanism to win the war, and by win I mean forcibly end hostilities. Currently their ability to do so is nonexistant. At best they can back the attacker in to station sitting, but still be stuck camping stations for a week.
That's the problem. That once party can start a fight AND finish it while the other can do neither.
No amount of incentives based mechanics will adress that. The defender needs a mechanism to finish the fight, as thet's generally the objective of the defender in the first place, an objective they are, at the moment, systematically incapable of achieving. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:08:35 -
[23] - Quote
I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45135
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:25:03 -
[24] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters, would make the merc buisness a lot more viable. Are you suggesting this both ways? As in, all player owned Corps must maintain assets in space in order to exist?
Or is this just a thing for wardeccers only?
On the front page of General Discussion at the moment is this thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495378&find=unread
If the guy who is now bumping and generally creating issues for the OP in that thread, was in a player Corp, are you suggesting that before the OP could declare war on him, the OP's Corp would first need to put up a Citadel, which the other guy could freely attack, but there would be no obligation the other way as well?
If so, how is that approach in any way fair on the small Corps that decide they want to do something about a situation like that?
Often suggestions talk about fairness, but they don't really provide that at all.
The moment wardecs are tied to structures in order to even happen, wardec groups all just become larger and larger in order to ensure they can defend against their opponents and if they are smart (which they are in many ways), they'll declare war against small Corps and groups that they know have no way to attack. Instantly, all the big Alliances and powerblocks (who do get wardecced currently) will become safe from wardecs, the large wardec groups will continue relatively unaffected and all small wardec groups (including small merc groups hired to declare war) will be discouraged from even existing. In particular, someone like the OP in that linked thread would be in a bind even if he could declare war. The other guy could just go and hire someone to ally in for him and totally wipe out the OP's Corp.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18573
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:37:56 -
[25] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters, would make the merc buisness a lot more viable. ok so ye say "whooo , something in space i can target wheeeee"
fine, in principal thats understandable given how much neutral alt-play comes with mercing these days. i get that i do.
what vimsy and i been trying to point out is that the best way to defend these things will invariably be to plant a blob on them, or have one on stand by.
if you cant field the sort of blob required you will not be inclined to try and rub shoulders with the sorts of lads that can. so you dont bother signing up for a ploughing from the estabelished lads at all, you join an alliance that has this setup already, or you grow to avoid getting battered, to sustain interest for your increased numbers you need to get more content (more wars), go to choke points and catch the through traffic. without some seriously tight knit and extremely patient and dedicated guys you have to do this because of the colossal level of work required to actively track and hunt . (and why were we having this conversation again?)
to be clear, a lot of us dont like the current state of affairs either, we have stopped soliciting business till this gets un-F***ed,
im not against balancing the mechanics here at all, but i can see this happening as clearly as i saw that we would end up here 8 months ago
vimsy's penny drops my own shortly there after believe us, we have been following this one closely the whole time and been proven right repeatedly. on the surface this looks like a great idea but its not actually going to help alleviate the problem without other balance changes in the way wars work.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18577
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:53:38 -
[26] - Quote
I realize I'm being quite negative here, so I'll endeavour to help the conversation
These are some of the things I have heard discussed and found that I agree so I'm not claiming credit here Possible solutions are
vimsys notion of reverse scaling costs I.e. the bigger the aggressor, the costlier the fee to the aggressor. Balancing the tools used for targeted and active warfare Bringing as much of the neutral altplay in house as possible Either removing the Allie system or opening it up for ever escalation on both sides Un-f****ing crime watch regards neutrality Giving aggressors the ability to retract wars (that doesn't have the word "surrender" involved, we have a 3 month war ongoing with an inactive corp for this exact reason) so that should we get our teeth kicked In we can drop it.
If we can do this and it works disincentivise larger blocks forming then you might be able to introduce structures as per the op But you're still looking at people blobbing up to keep them alive to some extent or another.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
"Or is this just a thing for wardeccers only"
yes, why, that old adage If you start something, war deccing has been an almost one way street with the eggressor's having free reign to bully folks forever, to choose the engagements, what this does is give a reason to seek alliance's, the war deccing Corp gets what it wants, full on PVP as people join sides to partake in a meaningful war, where killing the structure of another's opponents is the prize.
People go to Vegas for one reason (mostly), to gamble, the thrill of winning or losing, gambling is it's own addiction and our brains are configured to like this reward, if you throw dice you may win or lose, that's the attraction, to risk nothing and to pretty much know the outcome (when people war Dec weak corps), cheapens the thrill and turns the game into a cheap carnival ride that once done 100 times there is no real enjoyment just rinse and repeat.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45139
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:57:21 -
[28] - Quote
So you'll just achieve the exact opposite of what you think you'll achieve and more whinging in the forum will result.
In the process, completely eliminate the possibility of the two examples in my previous post.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18577
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
No, what this does is encourage mercs to close ranks further and lock down these damn things, Those that can't will not last, those that can will effectively become siege engines. Hell we already see this happening with vmg and atype now.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:21:42 -
[30] - Quote
Also just a second thought, with the coming of Alpha clones this makes it more of a reason to implement this, especially if you consider that people can join defending sides and you can have hundreds of Alpha clones beating each other over the head as people go head to head and this would go far in revitalizing the economy as ships get blown apart, implants get used, modules get destroyed, people join merc corps with their alphas to enjoy part time PVP, whilst leaving them free to use their omegas as they see fit.
This may even give folks afraid of PVP to rethink it so maybe the thrill becomes addicting bringing their Omega's Into The Fray. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45140
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:26:36 -
[31] - Quote
Alpha clones in their T1 ships and modules vs T3 fleets with boosts.
Yeah, getting stomped on the head is the reason so many people whine about wardecs already and fail to take responsibility themselves.
If players can't manage when they have all the resources of the game at their disposal, they aren't going to manage when they have less resources available.
Alphas aren't a solution to that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18578
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:28:50 -
[32] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Also just a second thought, with the coming of Alpha clones this makes it more of a reason to implement this, especially if you consider that people can join defending sides and you can have hundreds of Alpha clones beating each other over the head as people go head to head and this would go far in revitalizing the economy as ships get blown apart, implants get used, modules get destroyed, people join merc corps with their alphas to enjoy part time PVP, whilst leaving them free to use their omegas as they see fit.
This may even give folks afraid of PVP to rethink it so maybe the thrill becomes addicting bringing their Omega's Into The Fray. You haven't read a word I typed have you.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
140
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 04:11:33 -
[33] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I realize I'm being quite negative here, so I'll endeavour to help the conversation
These are some of the things I have heard discussed and found that I agree so I'm not claiming credit here Possible solutions are
vimsys notion of reverse scaling costs I.e. the bigger the aggressor, the costlier the fee to the aggressor. Balancing the tools used for targeted and active warfare Bringing as much of the neutral altplay in house as possible Either removing the Allie system or opening it up for ever escalation on both sides Un-f****ing crime watch regards neutrality Giving aggressors the ability to retract wars (that doesn't have the word "surrender" involved, we have a 3 month war ongoing with an inactive corp for this exact reason) so that should we get our teeth kicked In we can drop it.
If we can do this and it works disincentivise larger blocks forming then you might be able to introduce structures as per the op But you're still looking at people blobbing up to keep them alive to some extent or another.
Disincentizizing larger blocks is a pipe dream no matter what you do.
More pilots = more security
Period. Full stop. It's the inevitability of player choice coupled with an entropic ingame economic model.
There is literally no solution whatsoever that is going to change that. The current hisec blobbing you see going on today is simply an extension of the inevitable endgame of any open PvP environment. One or two sides, in the interests of personal security, will eventually hoover up anything of operational value. At some point one side will be all that's left. That side will crow about its victories until it gets bored because there's nobody left to fight, break up, and watch that cycle start over again.
Tying free or even costly structures in to wardec mechanics does not change this. It does not change the decision making process of people who declare wars for whatever reason. People dec entities because they want to hurt them. That's the only reason. You think the one guy that wants to dec a known blob gang is going to be less inclined to pay up because he has to spend five minutes finding a place for a free command tower? He's not. You think the people that can afford to blanket dec are going revise their target lists because there might be a slight inconvenience in the form of having to defend a structure at some point? They aren't. They didn't become wardec blobs to not prove a point with military force.
The only thing that having a free, ungunned structure tied to wardeccing changes is that it allows any given defender to actually theoretically force any given attacker to stop attacking them. Again, that is the basic goal of pretty much anyone defending a wardec.
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation. Boredom, greed, and risk aversion did. Just like the same things created BoB, gave rise to the CFC after it, and gave rise to NCPL now. It was always only a matter of time before that inevitability made its way to hisec. The only thing that has prevented it up to this point was simply lack of interest in hisec.
Now that everyone and their mother can drop citadels wherever they damn well please, there's ample content in hisec, and this, interest in hisec.
At some point people have to stop railing against the phantom of blob warfare. Blob warfare is what EVE is specifically designed to enable at a very basic level.
It's why all of the hot EVE news stories and all of the EVE trailers feature massive fleet battles with tales of massive amounts of ISK loss.
Anyone who thinks there's going to be some golden age of small actors is seriously deluding themselves. As a guy in charge of a small nobody corp I can confidently say that the only reason I get to do anything is literally because I'm not sitting on anything anybody bigger than me wants.
I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to delude myself in to thinking there's some sovereign right to freedom or doing wtf I want, or that there's some mythical area of space where the rules are different.
Choosing to stay a small entity means choosing to live in the cracks between bigger ones, and knowing where you stand in the greater scheme of things. It means being okay with being less successful because you value your playstyle more than your security or wallet.
No change to wardecs is going to reverse the hisec blob war problem because it's not a problem in the first place.
I'm talking about a systemic failing of the dec system used by everyone here, not alterations to deccing to break up blobs and make it better for the little guy. It's not ever going to be better for the little guy unless he becomes the big guy himself, or EVE somehow becomes a completely different game. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
501
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 06:43:50 -
[34] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Alpha clones in their T1 ships and modules vs T3 fleets with boosts.
Yeah, getting stomped on the head is the reason so many people whine about wardecs already and fail to take responsibility themselves.
If players can't manage when they have all the resources of the game at their disposal, they aren't going to manage when they have less resources available.
Alphas aren't a solution to that.
You know, some "uber fleets" have been sent packing by eve uni, bunch of t-1's and such, never underestimate even a group of People in noob ships. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18581
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 07:16:57 -
[35] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. And I'm done having this conversation with people who just want to have their way with it. Illsave my energy,time and patience. o7
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45148
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 08:31:48 -
[36] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:You know, some "uber fleets" have been sent packing by eve uni, bunch of t-1's and such, never underestimate even a group of People in noob ships. Never over estimate them either. Alphas are not the saviour of highsec.
As for Eve-uni, it's full of 10-year playing 'new players'.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
142
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 09:31:43 -
[37] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. And I'm done having this conversation with people who just want to have their way with it. Illsave my energy,time and patience. o7
It's been an interesting conversation nonetheless o7 |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:00:07 -
[38] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. That's not really true. The current situation was a long time in the making even though we all predicted it 3 years ago when the inferno changes were announced.
What the removal of the watchlist did is cement trade hub camping as the only plausible way to operate.
Everything else was a soft measure that pointed all the mercs towards a box which they all go into out of pragmatism. Removing the watchlist shut the lid on that box by finally eliminating the alternative. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:24:15 -
[39] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Both already have the undeniable opportunity to beat the other into submission. Defenders can even obtain an infinite number of completely free allies to assist. Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. The aggressor can simply dock up those characters that are involved in the war dec and play on alts for the duration leaving the defenders with nothing, and no one to "punch in the face" . NO forcing the aggressor to dock up is not winning the war and NO it is not functionally the same as winning, because the aggressor still maintains the ability to perpetuate the war until they decide to cancel it and while you are under war dec you are always subject to being attacked when / if the aggressors decide to un-dock and actually do something. Yes I know the whole play on alts, drop corp etc thing will likely spill forth here and that is all worthless since it does not address the real issues at the core of the problem with war decs in this game it is a work around that both sides employ.
You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true, yet the vast majority of the decs filed are about nothing more than lazy people war deccing god only knows how many corps and then sitting on gates and undocks looking for simple easy targets to shoot.
Moving on to a more general response. I have always found it impossible to understand, on the one hand you war dec players want more war (read that as shooting each other) in your wars and yet every single idea that is put forth that might accomplish this is resoundingly beaten down as game breaking and worthless. If you want more war in your war decs, and you want those you war dec to undock and fight then you need to give them something they can actually fight and you need to give them something to actually fight for and the current system offers neither of these.
Perhaps we need to address and answer a simple question before we get into how to change war decs. And that simple questions is what do you as war dec players actually want? Some of you want a system that promotes fights between aggressor and defender by chinging the system to give both sides clear objectives to fight for. Others want to retain the existing system which is quite literally the right to buy kill rights for an entire corp full of players. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:49:11 -
[40] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation.
Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides.
Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract.
But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting. |
|
Sentenced 1989
199
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 15:00:48 -
[41] - Quote
I kinda like the idea and think it has potential, but some changes would be needed for balance (this is purely entertaining idea and adding points for both sides).
1) You should not require this structure to start a war - there should be max number which you can start before needing it, lets say 3-5 (less then 3 might be to little, more then 5 defeats purpose of number 2)
2) You need one structure (citadel) which is not located in wh space to raise it for another 3-5 (here is where scalability would come in play). When wardecing your target gets notification which structure is running as HQ for your war, removing it ends the war. I am also pondering if this should be restricted to highsec and/or lowsec since wardec has only sense in those areas Wormholes could be tricky to find aggressor and nullsec could enjoy security of big 0.0 alliances to defend structure. Highsec offers easier siege for defender and lowsec brings issue of neutrals being able to target it as well but some defenders might not want to venture there
3) It would make sense to allow aggressor to pick which HQ is relevant for which war. You mentioned the need of regional HQ's, but that is complicating both on codebase for CPP and players (I can image lot's of playing on regional gate + I can image some aggressors running safety red, so you chase target, jump through gate and meet concord...)
With this your suggestion has a bit more substance. Small corps which have a reason to dec one or two other corps would be able so without much issues. Corps which wanna wage wars with lots of corps would need structures, would need to defend them, etc - giving chance to defenders to end it.
However, also keep in mind that this in the end just brings up the price to start war. Corps / alliances which lead lot's of wars could just align their vulnarable windows one after other so they have coverage and manpower to defend - but overall might provoke more fights since it gives objective to defenders.
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2260
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:39:26 -
[42] - Quote
I think 1 structure created by the war dec is a pretty solid idea. The more decs you carry, the more possible (not likely or plausible) it would be for the folks you have under the gun to gang up and topple you dec list. It would kind be like the snow flake principle. 1 snowflake is pretty and harmless, but when they all decide to gang up on you - the road gets treacherous. I like the 1 structure covering multiple decs. The balance would be that you would have to weigh out the who and how many end of the dec list you fund against those little snowflakes ganging up on your structure and resetting your dec list to ZERO. It's that kind of thought and consideration that would bring meaning back to HS pvp and remove the merc chaff from the merc wheat.
Here's a scenario I see playing out. The first time a reasonable force shows up to take down a player farming alliance dec structure, there will be a gut check by that alliances leadership. I'll be honest, of the player farming groups out there (like any group of people), some have moxy and will relish the content beacon, and some (the pure farmer and non pvper groups) will fold up like the cheap suits they are. There are several player farming groups out there that DO NOT in any way shape or form want adversaries that could shoot back and harm their little ships. You won't get any Serendipity tears if the posers get smashed out of the business.
The outcome: HS pvp heads back toward actual pvp. HS pvp fits evolve back into actual pvp fits (mids no longer dominated by sensor boosters). The big poser groups and individual poser pilots would go do something else less dangerous. The weak would be deleted.
Then again, until the Ally mechanic is removed there really isn't any mechanic that can't be easily over come. Getting rid of that rubbish needs to be the first step down the path to saving HS pvp. I used to lobby for a cap on the number of allies, but it is the major influence on HS pvp being..... not good. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2260
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:47:49 -
[43] - Quote
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
143
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 17:27:50 -
[44] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation. Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides. Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract. But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting.
In a technical sense, true.
In a practical sense under the current system the agressor still wields the basic ability to end hostilities, since they're the entity that has the choice of docking up, presenting no targets, and still having the elective option of undocking at any hour of the day to go shoot up a structure.
Which is kind of the core of the idea of "make it so everyone has structures to defend" to even that out a bit and have central fight points that create fights.
Thought I'd clarify since this point has been a major element in at least my reasoning/pushing for the "use an existing structure or be forced to anchor a free one" approach.
But yeah, no, yeah, Wars over structures are extremely common. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either never owned HS structures or is being willfully obtuse. The entire existence of HS structures is counterbalanced by such wardecs. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45160
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 17:46:10 -
[45] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true, ... Not so rare.
Look at POCOs for example. They die almost every day in highsec, often many more than one in a day:
https://zkillboard.com/ship/2233/
If you go through all the tower types, you'll also see they are regularly killed in highsec. It's not all that difficult to check.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1183
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 07:36:44 -
[46] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though.
So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.
Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 14:50:27 -
[47] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation. Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides. Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract. But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting. Speaking of checking your facts, may I suggest that you take your own advice. Before I list these yes I am aware that this changes as new things are added to the kill list. First structure kill in high sec was an MTU on page 3 but then they do not count since you do not need a war dec to kill an MTU. That was followed by 4 photon scattering arrays on page 4 - all owned by the same corp and killed in the same system so likely all at the same POS. But she states that are large numbers of structure kills every day in high sec so I must keep looking. Well boredom set in about page 50 with no major structure kills. Lots of MTU and a small group of POS related add ons that are essentially disposable and easily replaced. Causes the critical mind to wonder, if structures are a major part of war decs why no POS or citadel kills? If you are going to war dec a corp because structures then why stop at killing small easily replaced items like photon scattering arrays when you could kill the POS or citadel? Then we look at the active wars in high sec and in just a minute or so count more than 150 corps that are under war dec. Using the total size of the list, the part of it that I looked at and then extrapolating we could easily have more 1,000 active high sec war decs and the two data sets simply do not support your claim that many / most high sec wars are about structures.
Surrender or disbanding corp, thank you for pointing out just another of the many reasons why high sec war decs are in a terrible place and need to be altered radically. Even though I agree with you that the aggressors should be able to end the war whenever they want by simply retracting the dec, both you and Ralph are wrong on one point. The aggressor can end the war by simply refusing to pay to extend it and no surrender is required. Yet none of this changes the fact that the defenders have no way to end the war other than surrender, even if you are curb stomping the aggressors at every encounter you are REQUIRED by the current mechanic to play under war dec, or surrender to end the war. Yes I know the whole disband corp and all the other dec dodges that can be used. Despite what you may think I would rather fight than dodge, and given the ability to end a war by fighting I would choose that option in most cases. However the current unbalanced system offers me no reason to fight, and it is often better not to fight because boredom. In my years in this game I have found that the average war dec player is very much like a person with A.D.D. they get bored easily and move on to something else so not fighting is often the fastest and easiest way to get them to go away and leave you alone to play the game your way.
You are wrong about the care bear thing, I simply have a more practical and well balanced way of looking at the situation and quite often that manifests itself here as a pro-carebear point of view. Speaking in broad general terms here carebears are far more likely to spend real life cash money to play this game while the more hard core low, nul worm hole players are more likely to plex their account using plex they buy from the carebears. I have always found this aspect of EvE interesting and to be honest a bit bizarre and confusing. Those who are most likely to pay with plex seem to think they are more important than those who are most likely to actually spend cash to buy those plex. Yes I know not true in all cases but I did say I was speaking in a broad generalize way here. If I was running CCP I would be taking high sec down the path that the money was leading me to and in many ways we have seen precisely that happening.
But then none of that really matters we all pay to play this game in some way, and we all have an equal chance to state our ideas and opinions and yours are no more or no less valid based on game play style than mine. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45164
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 15:56:09 -
[48] - Quote
You can see representative structure stats for each month, just 2 posts above.
I'm not sure what you're looking at in your analysis, but it doesn't relate to what Vimsy wrote.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
147
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 21:21:51 -
[49] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window.
If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers.
You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment.
Because of the problem you just mentioned. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1184
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 21:29:48 -
[50] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp. This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window. If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers. You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment. Because of the problem you just mentioned. And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
147
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 22:01:38 -
[51] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:PopeUrban wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp. This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window. If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers. You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment. Because of the problem you just mentioned. And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.
Didn't miss it so much as affirming/expanding on what you said. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2275
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 11:11:23 -
[52] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
Don't be a boob and accidentally omit part of my quote. I brought it in it's full glory so everyone may see how you try to skew my post.
"Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you."
Obviously you are afraid or perhaps find determining your corps prime time to set the timer too daunting. I'll try to help you. Your prime time is when most of your pvp types are online to defend. I'll make it even easier for you. Make the timer like the POCO timer such that you can set it for a specific time of day in lieu of doing the math and figuring out how many hours.
Step 1: structure gets RFO at the time of choosing of the attackers Step 2: invul period ends at the time of choosing of the defenders
Timer is 24 hours maximum - The group assaulting the 'war structure' shouldn't have to fiddlefuckaround over 3 days. Smash it and then smash it again. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 13:15:11 -
[53] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly. I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway.
And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated. I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared. We could have thousands of structures killed in high sec every hour and that still does not prove that those structures were the reason for the war dec, all it proves is that they like the other characters were victims of the war dec.
One of the other statements I made was that the vast majority of the wars are not about structures they are in fact simply buying a license to kill others (yes I am still OK with this aspect) and structure kills have no affect on this. So I do have a challenge for you, pick a 24 hour period and count the number of high sec corps that are defenders in a war dec. Then go back to that same 24 hour period and count the number of corps that lost a structure. When you do this as I have on many occasion you will quickly see how totally irrelevant structures are to the overall picture of wars in high sec. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45168
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 18:55:24 -
[54] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly. I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway. No problems. You seemed to be struggling based on your earlier post, it looked like you were manually clicking through all the pages on zkillboard rather than accessing it's API and downloading the specific data needed.
Sorry if I got that wrong.
Quote:And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated. This is where we might differ here.
Back on page 1 where I claimed the wardec mechanics are needed for 'legitimate' reasons, you claimed that as 'the great lie of war decs', going on to explain that there are no legitimate reasons for wardecs.
In response, it was pointed out that 'There is of course, also the use of wardecs in order to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets. All of which are absolutely legitimate reasons to use the wardec mechanics.'
You responded with 'You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true,'.
So in response, the data clearly shows that it isn't at all rare to use the wardec mechanics to attack POCOs, POS and other corp level assets.
It's extremely common and is not only a legitimate use of the wardec mechanics, it's an absolutely necessary one because the only other option is to attempt to gank them, which isn't a reasonable option at all.
Quote:I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared.
No. As above, you claimed it was extremely rare that wardecs are legitimately used to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets.
If you look at the killmails tied into the stats posted above, you'll also see that it's not the big wardec alliances involved in most of those structure attacks. It's smaller Corps and Alliances who want that resource (eg. POCO) or who want to access the resources (eg. killing dead sticks).
However, if now you want to change this whole discussion to frame it differently and claim 'structures are rarely the reason wars are declared'
Then show your proof. If you know this to be true, it must be based on something. Show us.
I've posted the proof that supports the statements I have made. Post yours.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Old Pervert
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 19:03:03 -
[55] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.
Even a small corp should be able to scrounge together enough cash for a small citadel.
As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45168
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 19:23:13 -
[56] - Quote
Old Pervert wrote:As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game. A lot of single-character corps would beg to differ. Eve makes no restrictions on the minimum size of corps allowable.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Knight Jay
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 08:21:13 -
[57] - Quote
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1188
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 10:51:41 -
[58] - Quote
Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about.
Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting.
You need to drop the drugs.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Knight Jay
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 12:39:55 -
[59] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about. Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting. You need to drop the drugs.
try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready. People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea. And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1190
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 15:51:51 -
[60] - Quote
Knight Jay wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about. Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting. You need to drop the drugs. try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready. People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea. And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking. Oh god. Another weak minded fool. Pointing out a massive hole in your suggestion isn't trolling, though it seems your ego is a bit fragile, so let me say - yeah great idea. Let's allow highsec to let capitals jump in (although they can't reach all systems in highsec, so your Ida would require further changes to force projection...no issue at all). It's genius.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
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?
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45479
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 20:52:22 -
[91] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: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 [i]Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets[/i], 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. Good one. Quote one sentence out of an entire post and conclude that as the whole message. Like I said, go back and read it and hopefully the third time around you'll see that you misunderstood the point.
For example, in that same post above:
Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets,
Which my fingers clearly typed, but you apparently can't see (also highlighted in the same post you focused on above).
As to the OP not containing that proposal, no it didn't. It might be worth reading the whole thread before you try to take part in the dicsussion.
For example, this post (which if you look back at my message, is what I directly responded to:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6700878#post6700878
I'm not sure if your butt is just bleeding over your earlier stupidity in this thread about there being no legitimate reason to declare war on anyone, or you just lack the ability to understand context, but neither of those things are really important.
Corps cannot expect safety of their assets, that is the context of my reply. Nothing more.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45479
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 00:00:02 -
[92] - Quote
double post.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1063
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 15:19:52 -
[93] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: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. Reading and comprehending it is critical to a useful discourse you might want to train up that skill sometime soon. Because of quote limits and that I think this is a better way to handle this I will break with the norm and go this route.
"The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region" Clearly this indicates that the aggressor needs to have a structure in space to be able to declare a war. It also clearly indicates that when / if the structure is destroyed then the war decs come to an end immediately. But there is nothing here that would allow a corp to have structures in space AND be immune to a war dec.
"And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed." Here the OP states that once your structure in space has been destroyed the war ends and you enter into a 7 day cooling off period. After that cooling off period you can place another structure and then re-war dec anyone you want. Again I do not see anywhere here where it is possible to have a structure in space AND be immune to a war dec. Further more during that 7 day period they are not immune to ALL war decs, they are only immune to being re-decced by the corp that owned the structure they successfully destroyed and to be honest if they beat you and your structure they deserve that 7 day break.
But we can simply use an alt corp and re-dec them immediately, why yes you could do that and I want to thank you for proving that your concern about them being immune to war dec is false.
Black Pedro wrote: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. This is your opinion and obviously it is not shared by others. While I agree that the whole structures as a required part of a war dec has some problems to deal with and relative size of aggressor versus defenders is certainly one of them I still do not understand your resistance to the basic concept. Structures in space offer many avenues to generate content and conflict between players. Structures in space offer the possibility to add something that has been lacking in war decs forever, a way for the defender to actually WIN forcing the war to end immediately. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2923
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 16:02:24 -
[94] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:But we can simply use an alt corp and re-dec them immediately, why yes you could do that and I want to thank you for proving that your concern about them being immune to war dec is false. Wait, so your answer is that if you lose a war and are trying to explode a structure you should jump to a new corp and re-dec them? That's inane. If you believe that should be the intended way to shoot structures, why end the war or have a 7-day lockout in the first place? Clearly it is completely ineffective and thus a waste of time, only just cluttering up people's corp histories from making them jump between alt corps. Just let the agressors re-declare war while in the same corp and continue the structure bash if that is how you think structures should be contested in highsec and skip all the needless corporation hopping.
It doesn't matter though. CCP is not going to award immunity to attack as a reward for participating in a war, especially given how trivially it can be worked around as you describe. Structures are meant to be actively defended against an aggressor, and the OP's proposal is not compatible with that, at least under the current system of how structures are shot in highsec.
Donnachadh wrote:Black Pedro wrote: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. This is your opinion and obviously it is not shared by others. While I agree that the whole structures as a required part of a war dec has some problems to deal with and relative size of aggressor versus defenders is certainly one of them I still do not understand your resistance to the basic concept. Structures in space offer many avenues to generate content and conflict between players. Structures in space offer the possibility to add something that has been lacking in war decs forever, a way for the defender to actually WIN forcing the war to end immediately. It's not really an opinion. It is an obvious design consideration making such proposals impractical.
Actually I support structure-based wars. I only oppose giving players the ability to end wars. I don't think it is at all necessary, would stifle player interactions not promote them, favour large groups over small groups and would give too much safety to structures given the current system. It would be perfectly fine to require corporations to deploy structures before they can declare wars, and even have them lose the ability to declare wars if their structure is lost (until they deploy a new one), but current wars must be allowed to run thier course. The point after all, or so supporters of this idea claim, is to provide something for the defenders to counter-attack and inflict damage on the aggressor or force a fight (AKA "having some skin in the game"), not earn blanket safety from attack so that a group is allowed to PvE in peace or not have to defend its own structures. Players, and especially player groups, are suppose to be vulnerable to each other and such safety is anathema to the sandbox.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
204
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 22:55:03 -
[95] - 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.
Explain to me, under your system, what prevents me from blowing up every single hisec POCO, opting out of wardecs, and owning all tax revenue from those planets forever.
Explain what would prevent me from simply owning all of the moons in any given system just because I was the first one to drop towers on them.
Moving forward, consider the next wave of structures, drilling platforms. Explain to me how your system wouldn't create sustainable, permanent, unremovable economic advantage just becuase someone showed up first.
You're under the assumption that only people that don't actually want to fight would use this feature.
That's false.
People that want to continue to beat on others without being beat on themselves would. I'd happily abuse this system to have a massive invincible ISK printing machine in hisec without also having to stage combat ships and jump clones there in case of a wardec. I could run the whole machine with one alt. I could use the money it generated to do whatever I felt like, including deccing anyone dumb enough to actually opt in to decs.
Until everyone smartened up and everyone opted out of decs.
This is why wardeccers don't keep their assets holding characters in the same corp as their wardeccers, why most people with hauling alts put them in NPC corps, and generally why your proposed "opt out" system wouldn't work.
It would be completely stupid to opt IN to wardeccing. Wardeccing is a system designed to enable agression so that you can't simply do whatever you want without consequences in hisec. it is literally a useless system if you can opt out of it and keep all the benefits of being in a player corp. |
Nomistrav
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
353
|
Posted - 2016.11.18 08:41:04 -
[96] - Quote
I really couldn't care less about adding structures as another checkbox to the list of what an aggressor must put on the line to do the inevitable. It's just another ISK sink, and ISK has never been a good balancing factor (see: entire history of Eve). Even if this were a hypothetically feasible addition, you can almost guarantee that corporations will just put throw-away structures on the line designed solely for the purpose of starting the war and/or luring war targets. You could accomplish largely the same thing by increasing the war dec ISK cost.
War-decs in general are poorly devised because they lack a sense of purpose besides, I dunno, griefing. They're a way to skirt the rules of High-sec/Low-sec for easy kills, which is all fine and good, but there's no (healthy) way for a defending corp to actually defend against it and worse yet the mechanics are designed to actually ENCOURAGE larger entities attacking smaller entities (war dec costs increasing with the amount of members of the target corporation). So there's no real risk for say, Goonswarm, with 18,000+ members, to throw down a measly 50m ISK and lock a defending corp into a permanent war. Adding on a one-time check of an Astrahus would be absolutely nothing, since the aggressor is likely to have that anyway.
This becomes especially problematic when the aggressor has no real goal in mind and seeks -only- to grief the defending corporation. There is no feasible way out as the surrender mechanics are in control of the aggressors (because that makes **** all sense, right?) and the only other alternative is to drop corp, start a new one, and pray to god they don't war dec that one too.
It's anecdotal evidence, but I've never heard of a large corporation/alliance complaining that a small group of stubborn pilots are causing them havoc in high-sec. I have heard of a -lot- of smaller corporations getting locked into wars they cannot possibly win and cannot possibly leave. Toss in some derogatory comments, direct harassment of the players themselves, and the line between an in-game 'war' and griefing gets really, really blurry.
TL;DR - Adding structures to the checklist for aggressors doesn't address to core problems of the war dec system itself, which are deep rooted to heavily favor the aggressor in the first place.
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
Sitting Bull Lakota
SBL Co
221
|
Posted - 2016.11.18 11:24:28 -
[97] - Quote
Okay, first there is no such thing as griefing in EvE. You're are getting attacked in a PvP zone on the PvP server while you are flying a PvP ship after you pressed the PvP flagging button called undock. You asked for it.
So no, highsec war is not about "griefing."
Second, increasing the cost of wars with structures and fees will always increase the size of wardec alliances. This is guaranteed.
Third, making it more difficult to find wartargets will always make blanket deccing, hub humping, and gate camping the more preferable M.O.
You want to stop this trend? Lower the cost of wars. Stop suggesting structure based mechanics. Make wartargets easier to find and determine their online status.
The large alliances may not get smaller, but they'll stop getting bigger.
Not that any of that matters, because here's how you permanently defend against wardecs: Disband your oversized, wardec magnet corp and have each member make a 1 man corp for tax purposes. Make a chat channel featuring your confederation's text-art logo in the motd. Place your confederation's text art logo in your corp's bio. Set eachother to blue. Base out of one of the ten thousand tax haven/freeport citadels. Go have some EvE.
|
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2976
|
Posted - 2016.11.18 14:14:30 -
[98] - Quote
Only structure I could see be implemented with wars would be something that spawn upon wardec for both side and can be destroyed by the other one to end the war. No additional cost for the attacking side but still a way for the defender to end a war if they are willing to undock and do something about it.
Adding cost to wardecs by enforcing anchoring of any structure is counter productive for anyone who don't want to be decced by large group. People will always group up to split the cost you add on top of current wardecs anyway. |
Nomistrav
Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative
353
|
Posted - 2016.11.18 17:44:38 -
[99] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Okay, first there is no such thing as griefing in EvE. You're are getting attacked in a PvP zone on the PvP server while you are flying a PvP ship after you pressed the PvP flagging button called undock. You asked for it. So no, highsec war is not about "griefing."
Second, increasing the cost of wars with structures and fees will always increase the size of wardec alliances. This is guaranteed.
Third, making it more difficult to find wartargets will always make blanket deccing, hub humping, and gate camping the more preferable M.O.
You want to stop this trend? Lower the cost of wars. Stop suggesting structure based mechanics. Make wartargets easier to find and determine their online status. The large alliances may not get smaller, but they'll stop getting bigger.
Not that any of that matters, because here's how you permanently defend against wardecs: Disband your oversized, wardec magnet corp and have each member make a 1 man corp for tax purposes. Make a chat channel featuring your confederation's text-art logo in the motd. Place your confederation's text art logo in your corp's bio. Set eachother to blue. Base out of one of the ten thousand tax haven/freeport citadels. Go have some EvE.
Just so we're clear, there is -absolutely- such a thing as griefing in Eve Online and it has nothing to do with being attacked, losing assets, or being cut off from a certain region of space. It turns into griefing when the players themselves are directly being attacked as players inside and outside of the game. Unless we just forgot about the time when one particular member advocated the suicide of another player on a live stream, the time a group of scammers recorded a two hour long video of a player being harassed to the point of a near mental break, or when several people scratched out another player's name on the Eve Monument in Iceland, just to name a few off the top of my head.
In fact, the very idea of harassment was even discussed in an interview with CCP Seagull on Kotaku, in which she said: "But if it turns out it's a complete menace, we can then lock the ability for free players to shoot others in high security space. So they will be able to do that in low and null security space, but not in high security." Source
But that's all I'll say on the matter because it has little to do with the topic at hand.
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |