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 |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18927
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:31:42 -
[31] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote: 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!
and ...
in a game where anyone is allowed to hit anyone as hard and often , with as big a stick as they choose, it very much is your fault for not having one.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
9
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:42:55 -
[32] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: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".
Quote:There is no such thing as "a fair fight" or "an unfair fight". There's only a fight. Circumstances are irrelevant. SourceThats what a sandbox really is.
stop using the term sandbox and atleast have the honesty to say you want eve to be a PVP themepark
frankly theres nothing more carebearish than forming a gank squad against week old newbros and pretending its PVP |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27036
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:58:27 -
[33] - 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 I take it that you're ok with the carebear view that seeks to curtail and infringe on the activities of those that choose to prey on them?
Quote: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 Sandbox means that you can try to play the way that you want to, it also means that other people can also try to play the way that they want; even if that choice means interfering with the game play of others. The whole game is biased towards promoting the conflict that happens when your playstyle meets that of somebody else.
Quote:if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player It does provide a home for all types of player. Eve is a PvP sandbox with PvE elements, if someone is not willing to defend their right to engage in the playstyle they choose then they're playing the wrong game
I'm what many would call a bear, I play Eve for the PvE and to shoot the breeze with the various people I've meet along my journey through it. Wardecs aren't a problem, they're trivial to avoid without resorting to the commonplace and easy option of rolling or dropping corp. If more people thought about what they were doing when they undock, with or without an active war, they wouldn't make themselves easy meat for other players.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18928
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:04:37 -
[34] - 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 Might=Right
you want peace and tranquility , you are welcome to it
if
you can make it so despite all of us.
thats truer to the sandbox ideal than having your padded little corner where only "kind hands" and soothing words are allowed.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2886
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:05:05 -
[35] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Only problem I have with wardecs as such is that the defenders have no way to 'win' and end the war. CCP will never give defenders a way to end the war. Not only is that too much power for large groups who can then just blob their way out of any war, it is completely incompatible with how the structures are suppose to be exploded. You need two wardecs to even have a chance to explode one of them, and CCP will never let you out of having to defend your structure in highsec by the fiat of an ending war.
That said, I am not against some sort of structure that the aggressors are encouraged or forced to use so there is something at risk and for the defender to counter-attack. That could actually generate some some player-player content, not kill interaction like this perrenial bad idea of giving players the ability to end wars.
Eve is a full-time, PvP sandbox game. How is it compatible to given players the ability to make themselves immune to attack from the other players even as a reward for fighting?
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1228
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:32:26 -
[36] - Quote
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. Bullshit. Don't be such a weak minded wanker.
I'm not a wardeccer. I'm an industrialist and hauler.
Dumb stupid, wrong assumptions that are typical of you. Change is fine. This sort of "get out of jail free Carebear" proposal is BS.
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..."
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27037
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:43:36 -
[37] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:I'm not a wardeccer. I'm an industrialist and hauler.
Dumb stupid, wrong assumptions that are typical of you. Change is fine. This sort of "get out of jail free Carebear" proposal is BS. As a serial killer of NPC'd and small time industrialist, I get this a lot.
Some people don't understand that while we may share their general playstyle we don't share their viewpoint or opinions, because they often bear no relation to the actual game and are generally shite.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18930
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:50:22 -
[38] - Quote
I'll just point out here that we are where we are explicitly because of aggressive, targeted wars being gutted.
This was not an issue six months ago and it's not an issue that will be sorted by further restraints upon solely the aggressors.
Listen to the roundtable, we are far more open to restructuring wars abd thew way they function than ye realise, just only if that restructuring makes sense and is reasonable for all.
Structures like the one suggested in the op came up and vimsy explained at length what the issues with it were.
In short : 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 because the will beat the ever living **** out of you. 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?)
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45368
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 22:40:22 -
[39] - 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 As this is a wardec thread, I don't quite see how it infringes on any players choice to play peacefully.
NPC Corps are 100%, completely immune from wardecs.
Any player, wanting to avoid wardecs and never have any aggression associated with the mechanics can simply choose to be in an NPC Corp.
They can still play socially. Nothing about being in an NPC Corp prevents that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3588
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 23:17:56 -
[40] - Quote
My Dream wrote:[quote=Daichi Yamato]
stop using the term sandbox and atleast have the honesty to say you want eve to be a PVP themepark
frankly theres nothing more carebearish than forming a gank squad against week old newbros and pretending its PVP
You don't know what a sandbox or theme park is do you?
Like the others, i only occasionally pvp and that's mostly in faction warfare. I honestly haven't decced in a long time. But this is a full pvp sandbox game whether you like it or not. The quicker you understand that the better off we will all be.
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
|
|
Aatch Bland
1 Eyed Catfish
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 02:39:31 -
[41] - Quote
Honestly, the only thing I'd say is wrong with the current war-dec system is how the fee is calculated. It's cheaper to dec a small corp than a large one, and large corps have more ISK to bring to bear to start with. If the fee was based on the difference in sizes, it might help balance things out. As it stands now, it's far more profitable to wardec a small corp than it is a big one, since small corps are cheaper to wardec and have fewer members with which to fight back. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18935
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 02:46:48 -
[42] - Quote
And if you were to watch the roundtable you would see that the Merc community (or those of us present) unilaterally agree with you about this
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Aatch Bland
1 Eyed Catfish
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 02:58:55 -
[43] - Quote
Heh, I read the article linked earlier and you're right. I'm surprised that the cost, at the very least, hasn't been changed given that it seem fairly obvious. |
Honzas Krutas
Czech Interstellar Incorporated
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 09:11:21 -
[44] - Quote
Hi as a new player I could add some new thoughts about the wardeck issue that those two groups arguing here might not see.
My personal experinces were these:
- huge number of groups and solo players ganking new players in highsec, they are picking up t1 industrials, they do not care about obvious botting freighters on autopilot route (hows that it still flies CPP?) and all of that outside the war
- EVE basically forces new player to join a new corporation and all over the starting areas are mobile depots aiming for new players to join a corporation. Nowhere is written that then you can get war anytime and newbies are a target no.1 in any war because they lacks knowledge of how to recognize they are in warl, with whom etc.
- players declaring a wars/ganking are years and miles stronger by skills and experience than their target. I have yet to see a wardeck between two similarly strong corporations. So far it was always bigger/older/more experienced corp declaring a war to small/new/non pvp corps only
- ganking corps are declaring multiple wars (probably max) in order to get higher chance of finding a war target in the area where they gank. They do not care about fighting, they just want to gank a lonely target in highsec
- ganking corps are joining into multiple wars as ally in order to avoid wardeck limits and payments, again for same purpose
- majority of the wardecked corp players are either sitting in station till war ends or they leave corporation
- if a structure is packed up, there is no winner or loser in war and majority of wars ends with concord "length safety mechanism"
The problem here is that there are no safety mechanism. Yes eve is unique in a way its harsh world where all kind of things are possible, but does it mean the current system is perfect? Hardly.
I don't know how it should work, thing is that eve is so different that mechanisms from other games would probably not worked here at all.
However starting with notifying player that entering a corporation will then expose him to be part of the war an PvP and not "forcing new player into corporations" by opportunity system would be a good start.
Other games usually have multiple safety systems such as that too big corporation cannot declare war to small corporation (varios methods of calculating that, not just per number of members). However thats not going to work here since basically every big corp has a detached small corps operating under different terms or in certain region.
And I am not sure what does fighting for some objective as proposed by OP helps here. It will still come to the fact that the one who declares a war knows in advance they are stronger/smarter and are going to win. So essentially nothing would have changed in most of the wardecks, the weaker side would not fight.
But maybe its a good start. There would be less wardecks and it might help against the kind of war my corp is in atm where 2 players are camping our hg sectors in cloak whole day preventing us to mine and waiting for lonely mining/industry to appear in a time of day where we won't outnumber them. Once we group up they just use cloak in their safe spot and goes afk. Very funny.
Modding is fun. Please add more customization into EVE!
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
423
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 11:54:29 -
[45] - Quote
Honzas Krutas wrote:2 players are camping our hg sectors in cloak whole day preventing us to mine
This is the point where I lol'd and concluded you are in a corp with "leadership" that has absolutely no competence. RUN!
A real corp with halfway competent leadership would be using the tools available to all to easily deal with the situation you describe.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
My Dream
Albion Scientiic Projects
9
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 12:14:42 -
[46] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Honzas Krutas wrote:2 players are camping our hg sectors in cloak whole day preventing us to mine This is the point where I lol'd and concluded you are in a corp with "leadership" that has absolutely no competence. RUN! A real corp with halfway competent leadership would be using the tools available to all to easily deal with the situation you describe.
i actually agree with you on this . theres to many guys with no leadership skills recruiting newbros with no plans for pilot safety . all it leads to is the new player having a bad experiance of eve and quiting before theve even really started
id highly recommend him and his friends join EVE UNIVERSITY so the can learn game in a competant enviroment |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18937
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:02:45 -
[47] - Quote
My Dream wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Honzas Krutas wrote:2 players are camping our hg sectors in cloak whole day preventing us to mine This is the point where I lol'd and concluded you are in a corp with "leadership" that has absolutely no competence. RUN! A real corp with halfway competent leadership would be using the tools available to all to easily deal with the situation you describe. i actually agree with you on this . theres to many guys with no leadership skills recruiting newbros with no plans for pilot safety . all it leads to is the new player having a bad experiance of eve and quiting before theve even really started id highly recommend him and his friends join EVE UNIVERSITY so the can learn game in a competant enviroment The colloquial name for a corporation like this is "Punching Bag".
Definitely a crappy place for an newbro, get out ASAP.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1057
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:54:18 -
[48] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: EVE is a PvP game, and that means at ALL times. Again with this lie that EvE is a "PvP" (insert traditional shoot each other in the face definition) game. EvE is a sandbox that has many play styles and yes PvP is one of those play styles. In fact given that most items in EvE are player made and that CCP is pushing the game even further in that direction one could argue that resource procurement and manufacturing are the single most important play styles in EvE because without them you would have no ships to fly and no weapons and ammo to shoot people with.
John Yatolile wrote:nothing in eve needs enjoyment for both sides News flash this is a game we ALL play for enjoyment, when there is no enjoyment in it people stop playing. Wondering if you read the article in this link, it mentions that there needs to be an element of enjoyment for both sides in the war dec equation. I have not had time to sit and watch the video yet but one would surmise that this mention of an element of enjoyment came from the video of the warr dec round table, if that is correct then even the collected group of CSM and players involved would disagree with you on the enjoyment for both sides aspect of war decs.
But hey if you want to continually see the rosters of the corps you waste ISK to war dec reduced to zero because of dodging tactics hey I am OK with that I am perhaps one of EvE's greatest war dec dodgers, I have had lots of practice and frustrated a lot of war dec players along the way. You simply cannot imagine how much fun it is to un-dock a blingy mission ship right in full view of those who just a few minutes ago were your aggressors in a war dec knowing that there is nothing they can do that will not get them destroyed by Concord and knowing full well that because NPC corp you cannot be war decced. On the other hand if you want to actually see some war in your war decs I suggest that a change of attitude may be in order.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18937
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:34:26 -
[49] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: EVE is a PvP game, and that means at ALL times. Again with this lie that EvE is a "PvP" (insert traditional shoot each other in the face definition) game. EvE is a sandbox that has many play styles and yes PvP is one of those play styles. In fact given that most items in EvE are player made and that CCP is pushing the game even further in that direction one could argue that resource procurement and manufacturing are the single most important play styles in EvE because without them you would have no ships to fly and no weapons and ammo to shoot people with. John Yatolile wrote:nothing in eve needs enjoyment for both sides News flash this is a game we ALL play for enjoyment, when there is no enjoyment in it people stop playing. Wondering if you read the article in this link, it mentions that there needs to be an element of enjoyment for both sides in the war dec equation. I have not had time to sit and watch the video yet but one would surmise that this mention of an element of enjoyment came from the video of the warr dec round table, if that is correct then even the collected group of CSM and players involved would disagree with you on the enjoyment for both sides aspect of war decs. But hey if you want to continually see the rosters of the corps you waste ISK to war dec reduced to zero because of dodging tactics hey I am OK with that I am perhaps one of EvE's greatest war dec dodgers, I have had lots of practice and frustrated a lot of war dec players along the way. You simply cannot imagine how much fun it is to un-dock a blingy mission ship right in full view of those who just a few minutes ago were your aggressors in a war dec knowing that there is nothing they can do that will not get them destroyed by Concord and knowing full well that because NPC corp you cannot be war decced. On the other hand if you want to actually see some war in your war decs I suggest that a change of attitude may be in order.
Asterothi (the author of the article) dosent live or PvP in highsec so ... Watch the roundtable.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
John Yatolile
Thrashers Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:51:00 -
[50] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:News flash this is a game we ALL play for enjoyment, when there is no enjoyment in it people stop playing. Wondering if you read the article in this link, it mentions that there needs to be an element of enjoyment for both sides in the war dec equation. I have not had time to sit and watch the video yet but one would surmise that this mention of an element of enjoyment came from the video of the warr dec round table, if that is correct then even the collected group of CSM and players involved would disagree with you on the enjoyment for both sides aspect of war decs. But hey if you want to continually see the rosters of the corps you waste ISK to war dec reduced to zero because of dodging tactics hey I am OK with that I am perhaps one of EvE's greatest war dec dodgers, I have had lots of practice and frustrated a lot of war dec players along the way. You simply cannot imagine how much fun it is to un-dock a blingy mission ship right in full view of those who just a few minutes ago were your aggressors in a war dec knowing that there is nothing they can do that will not get them destroyed by Concord and knowing full well that because NPC corp you cannot be war decced. On the other hand if you want to actually see some war in your war decs I suggest that a change of attitude may be in order. I just play it to murder and get murdered in null sec I don't see why you have to force others to lower their enjoyment just so you can have yours Also I don't see why undocking in a mission ship after dodging feels good, it means they won and were able to inconvenience you I don't need war in war decs, I get my pvp elsewhere |
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
86
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:28:25 -
[51] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote: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 Except carebear corps still won't fight. Even if every war-dec nerf proposed gets in, carebears will complain about war-decs, will still complain that this forced PvP is ruining their game, and still wouldn't come out to fight.
Lann Shahni wrote:3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike! I think this misunderstanding is your problem. Eve is very fundamentally a PvP-focused game. Even some of the most central PvE activities, like incursions and market trading have some themes of PvP (in the case of incursions, contesting sites). You would probably argue that the recent Purity of the Throne event, for example, was entirely PvE, except I've gotten some good PvP out of it. Conflict is the main driving force in this game; without PvP there wouldn't be much of a reason for any of the PvE activities like industry.
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? Each area of space is its own different animal and has its own style of PvP. I prefer wormholes, myself. Some people love low-sec's style of PvP and can't stand null, for example. Some people like the different brand of PvP that high-sec provides. I can imagine a lack of capital ships is one feature some people like.
Several war-dec nerfs have already been implemented (removal of the watch-list being the latest), and that has forced high-sec war-dec entities into methods of play that is less fun. Removal of watch-list has forced many entities to camp on trade hubs and war-dec anything they can find, rather than going out to hunt targets. Nerfs in the past have forced smaller war-dec corps to consolidate into larger corporations and alliances (that are less possible for smaller groups to fight). This behavior isn't because they're risk-averse, it's so that they can get any targets at all. The past has shown that more nerfs only make the problem worse. |
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
26
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:50:16 -
[52] - Quote
Last I heard locator agents still work pretty well on tracking down targets and such. So does doing your own research on where players might be before initiating war decs. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45374
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 22:36:26 -
[53] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:Last I heard locator agents still work pretty well on tracking down targets and such. So does doing your own research on where players might be before initiating war decs. Although I'm not a merc, I hope I understand fairly well the impact of the watchlist changes to be able to explain why it isn't so simple as that.
Prior to the watch list changes, which were made to reduce intel about capital pilots, the wardec/Marc community used locator agents all the time. When a watchlist notification reported an enemy online, they ran locates to find them so they could go hunt them down.
However, locator agents work whether a character is logged in or not. Once the watchlist changes occurred, the use of the same appproach resulted in hunters chasing ghosts who weren't even online.
That alone isn't necessarily bad, however the resulting optimal wardec strategy that has resulted, is bad. Why continue to hunt ghosts when instead you can just hug a trade hub and blanke wardec everything?
That's the new optimal approach because chasing people who aren't online is boring as ****. Easier and more fun to wardec everything and let the content come to you.
For many mercs that approach sux, so a lot of the true hunters stopped and either play much less or do different things now. Others just joined the other wardec groups red lying in larger groups that need to wardec even more Corps/Alliances to ensure enough content for their members.
At the end of the day, mercs and wardeccers are just playing the game for fun like the rest of us; and they choose to play it their way, just as we choose to play it our way. There is nothing wrong with any of those choices.
So for those of us that don't wardec, it's actually in our best interest to make proposals that support the ability of small groups and mercs to play effectively, not to make proposals that further encourage the blob approach.
Small groups that will actually fight create opportunities for defenders to attack them. Large blob groups are either too big to attack, or they just dock up because they are only interested in consuming people, not being consumed.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
DSpite Culhach
310
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 01:57:04 -
[54] - Quote
Playing EVE has basically screwed up my view into other games permanently, and probably in a good way.
I play Warframe quite a bit, because I can play it in "small bites" as these days my attention span is lacking, and you would not believe how much petty complaining goes on in that game, a game may I add, totally free, and that is totally non competitive in any way, but they still feel entitled about everything.
EVE revolves around making other people lose more stuff then you. Regardless of what "measures" you choose to put in place, it does not change that fact, and people will just find new ways to workaround your trying to stop them.
Even if Wardeccing was made impossible in Hisec, dedicated people would just move to infiltrating Corps and just stealing all your stuff that way. It is just the EVE way.
I agree somewhat that Wardeccing is being used as a one-trick pony in many cases just so some Corps can keep their own Hisec safety and kill at will, but I honestly don't know how to make that more manageable.
I kind of dislike the current system in the same way I dislike the bounty system, where basically it has to be examined from the point of view that people with too much time on their hands will just find way to abuse it. Heck, look at how Faction Warfare was manipulated once to be just an ISK printing machine.
I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.
http://users.tpg.com.au/marpia/EVE_Online.html
|
Azazel Shardani
Viziam Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 05:27:56 -
[55] - Quote
This is a Pvp game, we have to accept it, period. We can easily agree that no matter what limitations are put in place, they will be easily abused. If you put a cap on current war declarations, what stops you to collaborate with others to fill the queue to stop others from declaring on you. nothing! You will be able to avoid Pvp by getting friendlies to keep you safe. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4526
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 06:13:12 -
[56] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:And if you were to watch the roundtable you would see that the Merc community (or those of us present) unilaterally agree with you about this I don't think that word means what you think it means. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4526
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 06:44:55 -
[57] - Quote
Minerva Arbosa wrote:Last I heard locator agents still work pretty well on tracking down targets and such. So does doing your own research on where players might be before initiating war decs.
They do still work, the difficulty is that there is no way of knowing who it is you need to run a locator agent on and that in high security space, where people can move with near total freedom and were there's no real need to be in any particular place at any particular time.
Addi tonally if you get to a system which the locator said the individual is in and they aren't there the only way to verify if they moved or logged off is to run another locator after you arrive and wait for the result and if it indicates another system, move to that system and repeat until you either find them or it tells you they're in the same system as them, but they aren't present in local.
This means that if you're at war with more than a tiny handful of people you will spend hours upon hours scouting individuals who simply are not present in the world at all, which is further exacerbated by the long cooldowns and low availability of locator agents.
You may think "It's not that much worse, is it?" and the answer is yes it is, actually hunting people using locator agents was not a particularly fast process before and was sufficiently a pain in the ass that trade hub campers existed. Now because of the huge amount of time you'll spend chasing characters that may not even have logged in for months a process that would previously have taken 40 minutes will take you 18+ hours.
Locator agents are not a substitute for the watchlist, the watchlist was the reason why locator agents worked at all. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate
2095
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 12:02:29 -
[58] - Quote
The cost element of wars seems arse about face. A wardec is basically bribing CONCORD to ignore aggressive acts. The cost of the wardec should maybe be some fixed cost plus an amount that is a function of the difference between the number of members in the corp.
E.g. a 10 man corp is wardecced by a 100 man corp. The fixed cost is say 50 mil, then another 1 mil per each player the aggressor has more than the defender, so in this example an additional 90 mil. This is effectively paying CONCORDto ignore each member of the corp.
The numbers are just for example, the principle being that a small corp attacking a large corp pays the base cost. A large corp attacking a small corp pays a lot more. Even sized corp wars would pay roughly the base cost.
This would allow small dedicated merc companies to flourish, but also give a corp with mumbers to fight back against such corps. The allies mechanism would need to go though. If another corp wants to help you they should also wardec the opponent. This makes being an ally a real decision with associated risk and cost.
Potentially tie this to a method for a defender to 'win' and wars would hopefully become more two-sided affairs that all can feel invested in. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18947
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 13:28:36 -
[59] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:unilaterally I don't think that word means what you think it means. . Evidently I can't tell the difference between unilaterally and unanimously in the wee hours of the morning.
Damn you vimsy and your literacy!
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1057
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 14:20:29 -
[60] - Quote
John Yatolile wrote:I don't see why you have to force others to lower their enjoyment just so you can have yours Let me re-phrase that for you so that it more accurately conveys the real situation and your real meaning.
As a PvP player my fun is more important that your fun as a PvE player.
Yet another of the tired, old and to be honest ridiculous comments we get from members of the war dec groups. And one has to wonder if you are so concerned about fun why do you ruin other players ability to have fun by declaring war on them? Oh silly me I forgot you are a PvP player and YOUR fun is more important than those you war dec.
John Yatolile wrote:Also I don't see why undocking in a mission ship after dodging feels good, it means they won and were able to inconvenience you No body has EVER inconvenience me in this game and no one EVER WILL, I have to many alts that can do the same thing this character can, alts you could spend decades trying to find but never will. Mine and the industrial characters and activities of the group of real life friends I fly with are buried under so many layers of alts, alt corps and the use of NPC stations as well as low sec that you and every other war dec player in the game combined will NEVER be able to find them much less disrupt them, so there is no inconvenience there either. And while we go about the things we do unhindered by your useless war decs we do so with the knowledge that it cost you (or someone else) at least 50 mil per week for the privilege of failing miserably at trying to disrupt the things we do for fun and profit.
I did not expect people like you to understand the whole enjoyment of un-docking a blingy mission ship in front of those who had you war decced just a few minutes ago thing. And no they have not inconvenienced me, I am still getting to do EXACTLY what I want to do, not only that but I can do it right in front of them. To be short it is the ultimate f*** you kind of thing, you can try but you cannot affect me or my game play style.
John Yatolile wrote:I don't need war in war decs, I get my pvp elsewhere Then one has to ask why do you care what happens to war decs if you do not need them to get your PvP? |
|
Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy Complaints Department
607
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 21:33:09 -
[61] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:John Yatolile wrote:I don't need war in war decs, I get my pvp elsewhere Then one has to ask why do you care what happens to war decs if you do not need them to get your PvP? I could ask the same of you ,as as you state Wardecs doesn't affect you in the least - In fact you get your own brand of fun at the expense of Wardeccers?
Sneaky bastard.
Complaints Department is recruiting!
We got wardecced, ohnoes!
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4533
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 11:12:45 -
[62] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The allies mechanism would need to go though. If another corp wants to help you they should also wardec the opponent. This makes being an ally a real decision with associated risk and cost.
The ally system is a difficult beast. On one hand it is an extremely heavily used mechanic and is extremely useful for actual mercenary work, on the other hand it is both incredibly powerful and totally in favor of the defender.
There's three things that are really wrong with it:
1. It completely bypasses the costs associated with declaring a war and essentially allows anyone to declare war against someone who have themselves declared a war for free. Even if you have enough players to max out the cost of declaring war on you, someone joining as an ally in a war you declared is free. This pretty much obliterates any attempt at balancing war costs based on any kind of logic.
2. The wait time on joining a war as an ally is only 4 hours vs 24 hours for a war that you actually paid for, which makes joining a war as an ally an objectively better as a means of gaining a war than actually declaring a war of you own. The difference in timers also leads to situations where people can intentionally manipulate timers to their benefit.
3. There is no approximate way for the aggressor to respond to someone bringing in allies. The defender can escalate a war by bringing in of thousands of pilots as allies completely for free without any risk of the aggressor doing the same thing back to them. If the aggressor wants assistance in this situation their allies would have to declare war on not only the defender but every one of their allies individually.
I don't think the ally system should outright be removed, but I think that right now the impact in has on PVP in highsec is overwhelmingly negative, it's used as a tool by large, established mercenary groups to crush new and smaller ones, it puts weaker aggressors in a position where they tend to suddenly find themselves faced with overwhelming opposition and generally creates an environment where everyone is incentivized to join very large mercenary alliances so they don't have to deal with constantly being at war with those same alliances.
You could fix it by making it actually have reasonable costs associated with it, by it having the same wait time as a war declaration and by making it so that if a defender chooses to bring in allies the aggressor gets to do the same. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1057
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 15:49:53 -
[63] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Donnachadh wrote:John Yatolile wrote:I don't need war in war decs, I get my pvp elsewhere Then one has to ask why do you care what happens to war decs if you do not need them to get your PvP? I could ask the same of you ,as as you state Wardecs doesn't affect you in the least - In fact you get your own brand of fun at the expense of Wardeccers? That would be a valid question and unlike you I will actually answer that question instead of dodging it.
I care because I have witnessed far to many people leave the game because of a war dec they wanted no part of.
I care because the system is so one sided in favor of the aggressors that it is ridiculous, leaving the various dodge tactics as the only real option for the majority of the players who are in the defenders role.
I care because as Vimsy points out the current allies system is broke as hell and to be honest it can only used by those who have large sums of ISK they are willing to spend. For those like the corp this character is in that have little to no ISK the allies system is worthless.
I care because war decs used to be fun for both sides, you know back when the aggressors were usually the same size as and often smaller than the defenders. Now the aggressors size usually makes it a fools errand to try and fight because you are hopelessly outnumbered at every encounter.
I care because the vast majority of the war decs are not about war in the traditional sense, you know fought over territory, access to resources, structures in space etc they are in fact simply a license to kill. See the next why this license to kill is a potentially bad thing.
I care because of the continually declining number of characters that are online as seen in my primary game time, down from a high of nearly 40,000 on a weekend to the point now where there is rarely more than 15,000 on the weekends and that drop in just the last 2 years. Wars are not the sole cause of this, but they are a factor despite what CCP says and the fact that the CSM and by extension CCP are looking into ways to change war decs are all the evidence needed to prove that.
I care because the feed back we see from those on the aggressor side of the issue varies so widely. One side wants to have immunity to war decs for some corps based on restrictions including but not limited to no structures in space. The polar opposite of this is the group that wants CCP to freeze the corp roles for the defenders making it impossible to drop corp. To counter the I will not play for the week this groups wants CCP to change the game so it forces players into space if they do not un-dock every X number of hours. Taken as a separate issue these alone indicate that there is a problem to be dealt with.
In the end and despite what some may think I am not against war in high sec, even if those wars are declared simply to make the members of the defending corp legal targets for kill board padding. What I want is to develop a system that works better than what we have. A system that keeps both sides on a relatively even footing when looking at number of characters involved so the defenders and aggressors are willing to get out and fight. A system that gives defenders a real and tangible reason to get out and fight. A system that does not punish the aggressors simply because they want to retract a war dec 2 days after it goes live. The list goes on but I will stop for now. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |