Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:34:10 -
[1] - Quote
Wardec in the current incarnation, has not changed is the start of EVE, itGÇÖs has never been a good system, it has mainly been used as cheap and easy way to engage in what is basicly grief play! I am not say that has not been wars, with meaningful narrative, but the a few and far apart!! some the problems with current system is that on incentives for defender to fight, which leads to tactic that they either dock up for the duration of the war or jump out of the corporation to another corp or an NPC corp!
I think by changing the wardec to being a structure based system, where you have to ingame structure that can killed, limiting the range of the wardec from EVE wide to a maximum range of region and lastly adding win conditions for the defender!
the rules i propose, is that there a structure that carries the wardec, a wardec tower! that tower has to placed in the area that is going affect, and should have a maximum range of region, the tower should have a vulnerability period each day set the attacker from 0 to 6 hours, and a war period, the period where the war is in effect of 0 to 24 hours, the relation between the 2 is that for each hour of vulnerability you set for your tower, you have 4 hours of war effect, and of course the vulnerability must set within war period! this is done each of the day of the week! The tower should be able to carry multiple wars at the same time, but all the wars must share the same range, and periods of vulnerability/war! If the Tower is lost, the aggressors, with that i mean any character that has been a member of the corp during the war, for any period of time, is prohibited from participating in an new war against any corp that the Tower carried for a full 30 days!
on a note, the tower should not have a reinforced period, and be destroyed in a single session, but should have enough HP, to give the owner time to respond!
give me feedback on what you think, but plz keep it civil! I will personally disregard any comments that rude, as simple whining!
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1225
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?
None? Didn't think so.
You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.
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..."
|
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
8
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:58:42 -
[3] - Quote
the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p |
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:03:16 -
[4] - Quote
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf, just look at the rampart rate of wardec now, which 99,9% carries no meaning, and does little else than annoy, which i think is bad, and that war i eve should be 2 sided thing with something to gain for either side! are the idea i have proposed perfect, probably not! but you can come with some suggestion how we may improve it? :) how you think it might be better and more engaging!
and thanks for opinion! :)
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?
None? Didn't think so.
You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.
|
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:06:05 -
[5] - Quote
I like the spirit in you idear, but i think it will be really hard implement in a reasonable way! i would like to see a suggestion how that could be done! :)
My Dream wrote:the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45361
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:12:23 -
[6] - Quote
I think it's worth starting here:
http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/
There's a lot to like in the article and proposed changes are balanced: require a structure, but give it watchlist capabilities.
Something for both sides.
The Roundtable is worth listening to also.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
8
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:17:33 -
[7] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote:I like the spirit in you idear, but i think it will be really hard implement in a reasonable way! i would like to see a suggestion how that could be done! :) My Dream wrote:the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p
well the problem with my idea is it infringes on player freedom to join an alliance and leave with free will . so i guess it would never work in eve sadly , and also it would form massive powerblocks and destroy the vision you can achieve meaningfull things as a little guy
my idea needs a single player game not an mmo like eve tbh =)
|
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:25:44 -
[8] - Quote
I think the idea of some sort of watch list would be a good idea, but it should limit to it, like a notice when a player enters the area affected by the war!
and thanks for you input!
Scipio Artelius wrote:I think it's worth starting here: http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/ There's a lot to like in the article and proposed changes are balanced: propose a structure, but give it watchlist and locator capabilities. Something for both sides. The Roundtable is worth listening to also. Any proposal that just takes a grrr wardeccer approach is probably never going to fly with CCP. They like conflict. Changes sure. But balanced, not one sided nerfs to agressors that serve only to make things safer for defenders and/or give defenders advantages by applying more burden on attackers. That's what this current proposal looks like.
|
Sitting Bull Lakota
SBL Co
201
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:29:08 -
[9] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote:you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf
War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?)
Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45361
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:36:12 -
[10] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Lann Shahni wrote:you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf
War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?) Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest. Yeah this.
There is nothing about a war that should require it in the mechanics to be symmetrical and fair, for one side or the other.
If defenders want to win, or want to just get on with the game, there are already mechanics that support that. We don't need more nerfs of wardeccers play styles. They are just as entitled to their form of play as anyone else and New Eden should always have risk no matter where.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:50:32 -
[11] - Quote
i agree i don't see, it from the wardec'kers view, and would like to get detailed view on that! from my point of view i see a rampant wardec i high sec that a "random" and driven for the same reason pll gank low level and easy targets in other MMO, ai greif play! and i think ! but a again i am limited by only be able to observer the world from own point fo view! :)
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Lann Shahni wrote:you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf
War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?) Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest.
|
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
8
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 11:01:39 -
[12] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Lann Shahni wrote:you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf
War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?) Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest. Yeah this. There is nothing about a war that should require it in the mechanics to be symmetrical and fair, for one side or the other. If defenders want to win, or want to just get on with the game, there are already mechanics that support that. We don't need more nerfs of wardeccers play styles. They are just as entitled to their form of play as anyone else and New Eden should always have risk no matter where.
your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way
many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode
if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player |
Echo Mande
88
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 11:23:20 -
[13] - Quote
Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start.
Wallet remarks everywhere
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18926
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 12:37:59 -
[14] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=498635&find=unread
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Mood Shinkou
Phantom Squad The Blood Covenant
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 12:48:25 -
[15] - Quote
Well I agree that 99% of wardecks have no purpose other than ganking in high sec.
Most wardeckers are the biggest cowards when it comes to actually fighting. But I dont really see the need to change anything.
EVE is a pvp game and you should play it that way.
If you want to avoid wardeckers...move to 0.0 or WH space. Those gankers never leave high&low sec. It is safer and more rewarding (and more fun).
The only bad issue in that the wardeck mechanics does not protect the new players making a new corp.
If you just want to do missions, mining, ratting and exploring without anyone interferring....you picked the wrong game.
This is a mmo...a pvp mmo, a survival game where you rise or fall.
- Mood |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2883
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 12:55:08 -
[16] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote:Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start. I am not sure exactly what this "griefing tool" meme is that is so popular to bandy about these days. All of Eve is about competing with, and often thwarting the goals of the other guy (AKA "griefing" them). CCP does not hide this nor claim otherwise, and even used this idea as the tag line to the last expansion: Build Your Dreams; Wreck Their Dreams. When two people are playing a game and have conflicting goals, one of them is likely going to be frustrated and come to "grief" as they lose out to the other player.
Wars have a simple purpose in Eve, as stated in the Inferno wardec devblog which is to "allow people to fight legally in hi sec" and that is what they do. It is not "griefing" to pick a fight with another group in Eve, as was explicitly stated in the previous version of the support page:
CCP wrote:What is grief play?
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.
This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.
The emphasis is mine. You are not suppose to be able to make yourself completely safe or isolate yourself from attack by the other players in New Eden. This idea that someone who declares war on you is "griefing" you is completely at odds with the fundamental design of this full-time, competitive PvP sandbox game. Do that many people really not understand what type of game they are playing?
As to the OP, I have supported both the idea of moving towards a structure-based wardec system, and of wardec-immune social corps, but I can assure you that neither of these ideas will appear as the neutered, "capture the flag", gimmick you are proposing. You will also not be given "safety" as a reward for defending yourself. You are not intended to be immune from the other players, especially if you have formed or joined a corporation, the competitive unit of this game.
If you understand this, the past design decisions, and the future changes that are possible and consistent with the overall vision of Eve Online will be much clearer to you.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Commissioner Omerla
New Eden Protection Service
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:14:08 -
[17] - Quote
I've heard the debate from both sides many times, and seen the power of the dreaded "wardec" first hand. What I can say is that for a newer player there is literally zero reason they should experience a hisec war because some alliance is content starved. However, on the flipside - EVE is a dangerous place and should always be respected for the hazards which can rear their head.
The most common retorts to this are:
1.) When you undock you consent to PVP 2.) Newer players who get into wars/ganked are more likely to stick around 3.) "git gud, skrub" 4.) Without wars you cannot effectively engage in PVP combat whilst in hisec
The carebear says:
1.) I just want to be left alone! 2.) I lost my hulk, my covetor and, a procurer in the same day. I'm going to play WoW where I can choose my server type. 3.) I'm literally a two week old character, what do you expect when you drop on industrialists in T2 and T3s? 4.) Every time I go through Uedema I get ganked by a fleet of CODE who literally camp the system 24/7.
My main arguments in favor:
1.) Never assume that you're safe, you'll find yourself surprised more often than not. 2.) I can personally verify that out of a sample size of approximately 100, this is only 30-40% true. It really depends on the pilot. 3.) You can't expect everyone to inject their new toon/alt to the skill ceiling required to effectively counter a war-target drop. 4.) PVP will never die, regardless of security status. That being said, hisec doesn't mean you're safer by any measure.
My argument against the system:
1.) You're right! Undocking means I've consented to PVP, but that doesn't mean I'm asking to get waxed by a 40+ catalyst fleet. 2.) It can drive a player to decide consensual PVP wasn't what they had envisioned. Causing them to leave, likely forever. 3.) Don't give me a reason to log my main, really though. Those things don't end well. 4.) Design a system where people can hire "NPC Mercs" which will act as active security. Now the war system is balanced.
For those who are wondering, I use wars as a very active part of my business and it would likely effect me negatively to have the system changed drastically. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten my first wardec and how helped put me on my path to success, but remember that if that war had broken me... I wouldn't be here to continue the cycle.
That doesn't mean that I think the system is designed with balance in mind, and the little guy will always suffer. How do I know this? I can assure you that over the years, and across my accounts... I've caused more people to quit this game than any single ganker ever will. The reason behind this is because I am the one who signs the death warrant and directs the intelligence report to the mercenary team which is tasked with the kill.
Why am I able to do this with such ease? The true reason is because CCP never decided that a 1000+ pilot alliance directly declaring war on an corp of say ten players who primarily mine/explore/mission would adversely effect the community, or populace as a whole. Well guess what? Those 5-15 miners disband their corp, and generally around 70% of the corp stops playing their toon entirely. You might say: "Wow, those are really high ratios, they must be inflated." and to this all I can say is, just as a marriage broker arranges for two people to be wed in matrimony, I arrange the most effective and efficient match between the corp on the receiving end of the wardec, and the mercs who will receive their pay from my clientele.
tl:dr
If I can destroy your corporation/alliance/illusion of pilot safety overnight... Anyone else out there with enough connections could as well. When alpha clone states are released, my contract volume will either explode beyond my level of management or CCP will have to find a alternative to letting people like me authorize 800 gankalysts on a corporation to be used over a period of less than 2 months. Let me assure you, that corp will stop logging/close their doors, on average after the 40th kill. |
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:26:26 -
[18] - Quote
i disagree on 3 points 1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh 2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games 3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike!
Black Pedro wrote:Echo Mande wrote:Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start. I am not sure exactly what this "griefing tool" meme is that is so popular to bandy about these days. All of Eve is about competing with, and often thwarting the goals of the other guy (AKA "griefing" them). CCP does not hide this nor claim otherwise, and even used this idea as the tag line to the last expansion: Build Your Dreams; Wreck Their Dreams. When two people are playing a game and have conflicting goals, one of them is likely going to be frustrated and come to "grief" as they lose out to the other player. Wars have a simple purpose in Eve, as stated in the Inferno wardec devblog which is to "allow people to fight legally in hi sec" and that is what they do. It is not "griefing" to pick a fight with another group in Eve, as was explicitly stated in the previous version of the support page: CCP wrote:What is grief play?
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.
This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.
The emphasis is mine. You are not suppose to be able to make yourself completely safe or isolate yourself from attack by the other players in New Eden. This idea that someone who declares war on you is "griefing" you is completely at odds with the fundamental design of this full-time, competitive PvP sandbox game. Do that many people really not understand what type of game they are playing?
As to the OP, I have supported both the idea of moving towards a structure-based wardec system, and of wardec-immune social corps, but I can assure you that neither of these ideas will appear as the neutered, "capture the flag", gimmick you are proposing. You will also not be given "safety" as a reward for defending yourself. You are not intended to be immune from the other players, especially if you have formed or joined a corporation, the competitive unit of this game.
If you understand this, the reasons for past design decisions, and the future changes that are possible and consistent with the overall vision of Eve Online will be much clearer to you.
|
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:31:06 -
[19] - Quote
I simple thought, a lot the high sec "PVP" players say they are doing for the PVP content! why not go low/nul or WH? you are more less ensurede to get into pvp battles there? free of spending isk on wardec! |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2883
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:43:08 -
[20] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote:i disagree on 3 points 1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh 2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games 3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike! You proposed making war into a silly game where players shoot each other's structures for no other reason to earn safety from each other's attacks. I don't see how that makes for better game play for anyone.
Grief play is explicitly banned as described in the quote I provided. It is against the EULA and not allowed. It so happens, that non-consensual wars are not considered "griefing" by CCP and are part of the game. If you don't like that, the problem is with you not the game.
And no, CCP says "[t]he essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." (p.22) There is no place for pure PvE gameplay and never has been for the last 13 years.
I think the only problem here is your expectations. Eve Online is not the game you think it is or wish it to be.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:16:24 -
[21] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Lann Shahni wrote:i disagree on 3 points 1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh 2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games 3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike! You proposed making war into a silly game where players shoot each other's structures for no other reason but to earn safety from each other's attacks. I don't see how that makes for better game play for anyone. Grief play is explicitly banned as described in the quote I provided. It is against the EULA and not allowed. It so happens, that non-consensual wars are not considered "griefing" by CCP and are part of the game. If you don't like that, the problem is with you not the game. And no, CCP says "[t]he essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." ( p.22) There is no place for pure PvE gameplay and never has been for the last 13 years. I think the only problem here is your expectations. Eve Online is not the game you think it is or wish it to be.
i disagree of what it say, tru PVP is part of EVE, and but you make it out like, that PVE do belong in EVE, and think you dead wrong, i agree that you should be able to completly awoid PVP, but that does exclude making a better and more fair system!
and you welcome to pitch in whit any idea you might have how that can be done! :) |
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
9
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:23:38 -
[22] - Quote
the trouble is black pedro and others that hold there views dont actually want a Sandbox . what they describe is a PVP themepark |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2883
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:32:19 -
[23] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote: i disagree of what it say, tru PVP is part of EVE, and but you make it out like, that PVE do belong in EVE, and think you dead wrong, i agree that you should be able to completly awoid PVP, but that does exclude making a better and more fair system!
and you welcome to pitch in whit any idea you might have how that can be done! :)
I did no such thing - PvE certainly belongs in Eve Online. PvE is an integral part of the game and much of all our game time is spent doing it.
However, what you don't seem to realize that the fundamental purpose of PvE in this game is to induce players to make themselves vulnerable to the other players in exchange for a reward. All, and I mean all, PvE is engineered such that it puts you at risk to attack by the other players. That is how a PvP sandbox game works, risk vs. reward and all that. There is no place for 100% safe PvE in such a system. This is the social compact of Eve - you make yourself a target (that is offer yourself up as content to the other players) and you get rewards.
Wars can be improved yes, but not by adding yet more ways for players to avoid them or make themselves immune to them. You want an idea? Ok, simply implement a social corp that is immune to wars. This pseudo-corp cannot tax, deploy structures, have a shared hanger or any other of the benefits of a real player corporation other than a logo, calendar and a chat channel and has a maximum number of corp members. Players that don't want to compete can form a social corp with their friends, which is essentially indistinguishable from the NPC corp, and mine or mission or whatever with no risk of wars.
There done. Risk vs. reward is respected, and competition between "real" corps is allowed to go on unhindered by your selfish desire to nerf all conflict out of highsec because you personally don't want to compete. Please, stop trying to kill the PvP game for the rest of us that we signed up to play.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1057
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:46:18 -
[24] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?
None? Didn't think so.
You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking. And yours is typical war dec player thinking, just say no to any changes instead of offering a compromise proposal. War decs in high sec are a major problem that needs to be addressed and the unwillingness to change as displayed by your comments here only deepens the problems. The CSM has taken note of the war dec problems and has started looking into them (see link above in Scipio Artelius post) and how they might be changed. Instead of the attitude you display here which makes you a part of the problem perhaps you could become a part of the solution by offering counter proposals, or ideas to change the parts of the OP idea you do not like.
Scipio Artelius thank you for the link, that is an article I had not seen. Interesting ideas and hopefully I will have time this weekend to watch the video clip. Various forms of structure based war decs have been proposed here on many occasions and they have usually met with nothing but negative comments from the war dec crowd, one has to wonder if this idea will fare any better.
My personal thoughts in basic are simple. Both sides need to have a way to win the war by virtue of force. Defenders win the war ends immediately, aggressors wins the war continues.
Unlike current mechanics the aggressors need some way to end a war when they want, a way that does not require them to surrender but still allows them to end the war before the current week is up.
Relative size of aggressor versus defenders needs to be looked at and controlled as well, and yes I would encourage removing or altering the current allies mechanic as a part of this because it does not work well especially for the aggressors.
War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well. |
Lann Shahni
Sanity Forgotten inPanic
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:02:04 -
[25] - Quote
Thank you for you serious reply! :) and agree with you on all points, and i do wish that the wardec pll would contribute with a little more, then just there is no problem! from my point of view, it seems a little like the guy whit big stick, beating up the guy with none, while telling him it's fair! and it's his own fault for not having the stick!
Donnachadh wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?
None? Didn't think so.
You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking. And yours is typical war dec player thinking, just say no to any changes instead of offering a compromise proposal. War decs in high sec are a major problem that needs to be addressed and the unwillingness to change as displayed by your comments here only deepens the problems. The CSM has taken note of the war dec problems and has started looking into them (see link above in Scipio Artelius post) and how they might be changed. Instead of the attitude you display here which makes you a part of the problem perhaps you could become a part of the solution by offering counter proposals, or ideas to change the parts of the OP idea you do not like. Scipio Artelius thank you for the link, that is an article I had not seen. Interesting ideas and hopefully I will have time this weekend to watch the video clip. Various forms of structure based war decs have been proposed here on many occasions and they have usually met with nothing but negative comments from the war dec crowd, one has to wonder if this idea will fare any better. My personal thoughts in basic are simple. Both sides need to have a way to win the war by virtue of force. Defenders win the war ends immediately, aggressors wins the war continues. Unlike current mechanics the aggressors need some way to end a war when they want, a way that does not require them to surrender but still allows them to end the war before the current week is up. Relative size of aggressor versus defenders needs to be looked at and controlled as well, and yes I would encourage removing or altering the current allies mechanic as a part of this because it does not work well especially for the aggressors. War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well. |
Undertaker Service
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:08:41 -
[26] - Quote
War should be a result of a dispute between two groups. Not a tool to harass and ruin corporations for no reason. The way the war mechanics now work is massively flawed. Its just a content and isk generator for HS wardec groups who have countless wars going at the same time. There hardly ever is a reason for a war.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3587
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:43:04 -
[27] - Quote
My Dream wrote:
your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way
many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode
if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player
It is a home to all types of player, but you are dead wrong if you think you have a right to be left alone. EVE is a PvP game, and that means at ALL times. So you dont have to seek out PvP, but it can happen at anytime by the very nature of the sandbox.
Quote: You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
Source
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
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate
2095
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:08:36 -
[28] - Quote
Only problem I have with wardecs as such is that the defenders have no way to 'win' and end the war.
Perhaps if the aggressor loses more isk in ships in any day than the defenders they should be deemed to have lost? Some means to stop aggressors from just docking up would be required. Maybe some method of defenders 'Calling Out' the aggressors to fight, and if they don't come out they are deemed to 'lose face' until they reach a point where they are laughed out of the war (gunslinger style, everyone else takes cover in the saloons in the citadel nearby to watch...)
Just random thoughts from a sleep deprived brain :D |
John Yatolile
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:28:18 -
[29] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote:I simple thought, a lot the high sec "PVP" players say they are doing for the PVP content! why not go low/nul or WH? you are more less ensurede to get into pvp battles there? free of spending isk on wardec! because they don't have to Hi sec deccers are scrubs, but that doesn't mean they have to be forced in low or null EVE has been, always was, and always will be a game where winning is causing your target as much """""""""pain""""""""" as possible Please stop crying and learn to join people who can fight or learn yourself Gankers can be beaten to submission just as you can Greifing is more central to EVE than carebearing as carbearing is more often a means to that end |
John Yatolile
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:30:49 -
[30] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:[quote=Shae Tadaruwa]War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well. nothing in eve needs enjoyment for both sides |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |