| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Orestes
   |
Posted - 2004.01.18 14:27:00 -
[1]
Due to the new proposed war system generating so much feedback, the Dev Blog has become unreadable.
Please add your constructive comments here. Offer viable solutions to problems you perceive, critique the flaws you see in the system, but please keep it all nice and clean.
Thanks for your input, as always.
Join the IC! |
CLONE 9
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:02:00 -
[2]
Making use of existing functionality = good
Bending the concept of war to fit in with existing functionality = bad
The solution proposed wasn't JUST about war - but was about using standings as a multi purpose function for alliances also. I think it's a mistake to try and knit the two together.
Thanks for allowing us this opportunity to review the issue.
... original dev blog post follows for detail :
If you're also planning this at corporate level then you may as well just remove the feature because the uptake will be zero IMO.
Additionally:
 Quote:
Leaving Alliance:
1. Player B / Corporation B alters standing towards Player A / Corporation A
2. In 24 hours they are no longer in Alliance with Player A / Corporation A
3. In 24 hours they no longer have any wars that were caused by the Alliance
Not sure 24 hrs is enough here - I can see people becoming weekend warriors.
Another issue with a 24 hr alliance join / leave period.
Small alliance A and small alliance B declare war ... A - being sneaky buggers then recruit in several corps with massive membership - thus outnumbering small alliance B by a huge number and spend a week podding them and trashing their ships with glee. After a fun week podding all the members of small alliance B with their surprise 'late' association - the late comers of 'A' leave in a 24 hrs period and safely go off and do something nice and non pvp like agents or knitting .... while small alliance B are left wondering what bit them.
To put it another way - it's like Belgium declaring war on Austria .. Austria accepting .. and then Belgium saying "By the way, we've got the USA on our side"
Perhaps you need to think about changing the period of alliance recruitment / resignation periods all to 7 days to avoid this.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:08:00 -
[3]
Think that's how TomB wanted it that is making temporary allies. The only real problem I see with the proposed system is the fact that you need to accept war.
__________
Capacitor research |
TomB
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:35:00 -
[4]
Quote:
Not sure 24 hrs is enough here - I can see people becoming weekend warriors.
Another issue with a 24 hr alliance join / leave period.
Perhaps you need to think about changing the period of alliance recruitment / resignation periods all to 7 days to avoid this.
Yes it's a good comment, either we would not allow new alliance members to become wars if they are still in join process if the war was stopped. But it can of course be a big problem if CEO or Directors are not online at that time.
Changing members quitting and new alliance members to same period of time would be much simpler.
Quote:
To put it another way - it's like Belgium declaring war on Austria .. Austria accepting .. and then Belgium saying "By the way, we've got the USA on our side"
If you declare back on Belgium with out looking through their alliance members, you got yourself a problem. The alliance and war members will be public in the corporation information so only you can make a false step.
Quote:
Thanks for allowing us this opportunity to review the issue.
Thank you for the feedback.
"Where is my hat?" |
loladoll
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:36:00 -
[5]
Quote:
The only real problem I see with the proposed system is the fact that you need to accept war.
This is good : it protects the peacfull carebear from harassment. It makes empire space safe (sort of anyways). Els m0o could just declare war on an innocent corp and hunt them down right in 1.0 space
______________________________________
live is tough and then you get a clone |
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:43:00 -
[6]
thx a lot orestes.
well, all who fought their way through 400 post will know my position, so here in short:
1. consenting on war is bull****.
2. what we need is a full second layer of corp structure (=alliance)
3. the proposed system is very close to the "bracket color change" that is already existing on chaos, it s not a real alliance system
4. ppl will massively abuse the possibility of getting all advantages without any war risk by using personal war/alliance
5. fighting the warships of an alliance in high sec, while their miners continue their business in the same system, is stupid.
the system offers little advantage at a high price. i vote no.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:49:00 -
[7]
Quote:
Els m0o could just declare war on an innocent corp and hunt them down right in 1.0 space
they can do it NOW if they WANT!
EVE need PvP, without PvP there wouldnt exist a market!!
and if "griefers" like the ones that decleared war on Kiroshi scare away their "n00bs" then make 1.0 systems NO-PVP-SYSTEM!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Master Scy
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 16:54:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Quote:
The only real problem I see with the proposed system is the fact that you need to accept war.
This is good : it protects the peacfull carebear from harassment. It makes empire space safe (sort of anyways). Els m0o could just declare war on an innocent corp and hunt them down right in 1.0 space
Ok, here's a scenario... You are at war with another corp. They are being supplied with tech 2 items (that you don't have access to) & ships by a research & development corp that is not in a formal alliance with them. So, how do you deal with this? Keeping in mind that the R&D corp will not mine in the same region every time they go outside of empire space... |
Vegeta
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 17:07:00 -
[9]
How about dropping that idea and do as proposed a few months ago. Let corporations create Factions or Alliances. These alliances would basically work like corporations that has corporations instead of people as members, all members of the corporations within the alliance are displayed with blue icons.
2005.04.25 16:40:42 combat Your 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes LawrenceNewton [WARAG], wrecking for 2706.9 damage.
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 17:19:00 -
[10]
Like the idea of the alliance system.
Like the idea of unlimited concensual wars.
HATE the idea of losing our 3 non-concensual war slots. We NEED to be able to execute non-concensual war.
Add to the current system, don't remove from it - please.
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 17:28:00 -
[11]
I still see an option for there to be one sided declared wars, with the unwilling party having the ability of seeking sanctuary in high security systems for a fee paid to their keepers.
Possibly limiting their sanctuary to one sovereignty thus limiting their mobility even further till the conflict has been resolved.
Convert Stations
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 17:39:00 -
[12]
It's not our intention to keep everyone in Empire Space nor to allow everyone to kill each other there, the only thing needed is a reason for all players with experience to leave it.
Reason would go in before or at the same time as the war declaration changes.
CONCORD does not support PvP based corporations to single side grief on economic based corporations with out a motive, the motive surely being accepting or declaring a war towards the PvP based corporation.
If you are a PvPer and hate the richest person in-game who never leaves Empire Space because he is the wisest jack of trades with out taking risks, kill his clients that go to Deep Space. 
"Where is my hat?" |
Sara Kerrigan
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 17:54:00 -
[13]
Most people are commenting on the corp/alliance war aspect of this, so here's a few of my comments on the individual wars:
If you allow the war to be declared on one side as opposed to your plan of mutual consent, you would finally have the start of a bounty hunting system. Player A hires Player B (bounty hunter) to kill Player C for a set amount of ISK. So Player B declares personal war on Player C, and is able to hunt him down. Player C would of course get an evemail warning about it (and the state would apply after 24 hours). Add in a bounty hunting skill that delays the time before Player C gets his warning that he's being hunted (or to reduce cost of declaring) and we're all set for the profession.
Now of course, we can't just let this be infinite, or someone will declare on the whole universe. You have the following options:
1.) limit the number of declarations
2.) add a concord fee for declaring personal wars (slip them some cash to look the other way). If a player wants to hire a bounty hunter, he can pay a little up front to cover the fee (at the risk of scam. a good bounty hunter will be well known for his honesty though, and we will begin to recognize which players are the ones to go to).
Also something to add in, bounty hunting could be better worked into the UI. Player A assigns player B as the hunter of player C, by consent of A and B. Player A pays the personal war fee to concord which allows player B's standing to be set to -10 (war) on player C. Someone setting the standing himself should have to wait 24hrs, while going through the official bounty hunting system would be quicker.
______________
The Kerrigan Chronicles |
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:03:00 -
[14]
Hey TomB,
I sent Pann a standings proposal for you guys to look/laugh at. Hope you have time to give it the once over.
As for the war issue: all people need the threat of war hanging over them, otherwise the game will degenerate into a two tier system. The biggest problem is a war can never be won if the PvP enemies are being supplied by effectively immune allies (be it in a formal alliance or otherwise).
This would be a bad thing.
There does indeed need to be controls to protect form the miniscule % of people that abuse the war system but l'm sure that one sided/non-consensual war can be controlled without having to do away with it altogether!
|
Scragg
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:04:00 -
[15]
I like the proposed system. It makes PvP in high security Empire space consentual by both parties. Keeps griefer corps from forming and just declaring war on whoever they feel like and their vitems allies not being able to help them. Fixes the STOOPID war system they have now where it's impossible to end a war if one side or the other does not want to.
It may not be the best system but it's many times better than what we have now and it actually has provisions for formal alliances.
Scragg, Tyrell Corporation
Vice-Director Military Operations |
Dawen DeRanger
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:22:00 -
[16]
TomB. I think one of the fundimental faults with Eve is that it's actually two games.
You have Eve the space trading, mining, industry game, and you have Eve the space combat game.
The problem is that you have two very different types of player in each camp and at the moment, whatever you do to try and apease one group will only upset the other.
I can see you plan of action, in that Empire space generally provides safe areas for none combat groups to mine and manufacture, and then sell their goods onto the 'fronter' Corps who are out there fighting.
But people being as people are things never work out that clear cut.
I think before you go any further you guys have to bite the bullet, so to speak, and decide what Eve will be.
Will it be a Space Trading, mining, manufacturing game with limited combat, with combat limited to Player vs NPC or PvP in agreed organized events?
Or will it be a space combat game with a simplified trade/manufacturing model?
There are merits to both games. But the problem is that the players of either style tend to polerise into either "Griefers" or "Carebears", there I've insulted everybody <g>
But seriously. At the moment Eve is so polerised a to what type of game it is, nothing can be implemented that won't upset as many as it pleases.
But perhaps that's where it needs us players to step forward from our respective positions and help the devs make Eve into something everybody can enjoy
|
Neamus
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:22:00 -
[17]
I was under the impression that the big picture was to see corps moving out of empire space and into 0.0 space. With the current system if a non pvp corp goes into war and finds itself at risk in empire space, it is more likely to move out to 0.0 and hide behind the fighters of whichever alliance they are members of.
The new system of total safety in high sec systems is going to do the oppersite. The nerfing of battleship strip miners in high sec space never happened. So there is no real incentive to move to 0.0. You may need mega and Zyd for manufacturing, but you require far more lower grade minerals which are found in abundance in "safe space"
I agree they should be some kind of protection for true noobs corps trying to get a foothold in eve but a "blanket" system is a wrong way of going about it. Too few corps will accept wars and even those who do will create empire based spin off corps which can continue pumping isk into the war effort in total safety. So while you can blow up the ships of those who want to fight, you will never be able to beat a corp into submission by hiting the infrastructure/manufacturing lines which is where the real damage is done.
If you want wars to be fought out of empire space you need to encourage the corps to move out there. If all the prey is in empire space, thats where the pirates will be. If the pirates have no way of hunting this prey, they will just get bored and quit the game, which inturn would make eve a very boring place.
Make it consensual wars for fighting in 1.0 & 0.9 space. Everywhere else as it is atm. Keep your promise of nerfing afk battleship miners in "safe space" and actually inforce the risk vs reward policy you keep claiming to want. The whole risk free out of grid mining in 0.0 just makes the situation worse. If you can have afk indys mining ark/bist in total safety then there is really no reason for a corp to move to 0.0 and be at risk. |
White Tiger
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:23:00 -
[18]
Why should it be necessary for both parties to consent to war?
Mutual Consent would not be War...More like a boxing match or some other brutal sporting event.
White Tiger
Founding Member and CEO of Tactical Advisory Group
"The Only Easy Day was Yesterday." |
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:33:00 -
[19]
Quote:
It's not our intention to keep everyone in Empire Space nor to allow everyone to kill each other there, the only thing needed is a reason for all players with experience to leave it.
Reason would go in before or at the same time as the war declaration changes.
CONCORD does not support PvP based corporations to single side grief on economic based corporations with out a motive, the motive surely being accepting or declaring a war towards the PvP based corporation.
This reason cannot be making 0.0 more profitable it MUST be making 0.5+ not profitable. As long as 12 apocs can stripmine entire constalations of scordite making huge money for no risk thier will always be away to sucessfully conduct a war while hiding supply lines in 0.5+.
An example:
Alliance A and Alliance B are at war with each other. Corp B1 is a major manufacturing corp and is the main supplier of ships and equiptment to alliance B. B1 are infact a member of alliance B. B1 has all of its operations in 0.5+, they mine obcene amounts of scordite which is sold and the isk is usesd to buy high end minerals, and thus equiptment is manufactured. Alliance A wishes to win this war and to do that they must cut off the supply of equiptment to alliance B. There is no other way to win a war other than by attrition.
Under current system:
Alliance A finds out that the reason they cant put a dent in Alliance B's war machine is because B1 is supplying them. Corp A1 from alliance A uses a war slot to declare war on B1. They have found there operation and destroy the mining apocs in 0.5+ causeing Alliance B's money and equiptment to dry up thus the war takes a turn after Alliance A's excellent use of military intelligence to defeat their enemy.
Under proposed system:
Corp B1 of alliance B never sets anyone to +10 rating. Alliance A sets -10 to corp B1, But B1 does not accept the war. Alliance A has no means of recourse. They end up using the same tactic as Alliance B and use an invulnerable manufacturing corp to make them equitment and ships. The war will never end. There is no way to cause attrition because there is no way to stop the flow of isk.
Conclusion:
There is no motive for corp B1 to accept the war dec. There is however perfect motive for A1 to declare on B1. There is no method of stoping B1 under the new system. Even if 0.5+ is changed, short of removing every scrap of ore and npc in 0.5+ the ability for them to make increadable money will always be there.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:35:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Torvus Jay on 18/01/2004 18:42:40
Continued
It is my opinion that this will cause the game to become more of a shooter than probably the most tactically oriented mmo ever made. The only reason for war will be cheap fun. It will be perpetual fighting until the servers shut down. But the fighting isnt where the fun is in the high level game. It the conquest, the scramble for power and domination that will make the game stay interesting when you have been playing for 2 years.
Quote:
If you are a PvPer and hate the richest person in-game who never leaves Empire Space because he is the wisest jack of trades with out taking risks, kill his clients that go to Deep Space.
For this bit i reference the faq here:
Quote:
6.5 Are wars possible between corporations?
Most definitely. One of the main purposes of corporations is to allow formal wars to be fought over resources, trade routes, strategic systems or simple pride. Players belonging to a warring corporation may attack the opposition without impunity or loss of security status.
In order to keep things interesting and retain a bit of realism, declarations of war do not require a mutual agreement, just as in the real world. The declaration of war is sent from one CEO to another and the fight begins. Corporations are limited to three declared wars at a time, though the number of wars in which a corp can be involved is limitless. For example, if Corp A has declared war on Corps B, C and D, the CEO must surrender û or force the CEO of B, C or D to surrender û before he can declare war on Corp E; however, if Corp A has declared war on Corps B, C and D, Corp E may declare war on Corp A.
It specifically states that pride or any other reason is good enough for declaring a war. Non-consentual war is a defining fundamental aspect of this game. I feel like i have been lied to.
Cheers
Torvus Jay
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 18:36:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 18/01/2004 18:38:47
why make Rejection of War Declearation possible?
i have never seen a "I QUIT COUSE A CORP DECLEARED WAR ON MY CORP!!" post. And EVE is good as it is and the old War System is Good enough, it just need some tweaking in the Alliance/Faction Area!!!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 19:41:00 -
[22]
What's the point in having corporate wars at all, if it's rejectable?
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 19:45:00 -
[23]
Quote:
What's the point in having corporate wars at all, if it's rejectable?
Sometimes both corps think they can win the war 
__________
Capacitor research |
Lallante
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 19:49:00 -
[24]
"But the fighting isnt where the fun is in the high level game"
OMG this had me roflmao....
N00B!
Fighting is where 95% of the high end fun/strategy/tactical play is at. The only thing is, only the corps in the big alliances (and even then mainly only SA, CA and FE) actually get to do PROPER fighting.
This change wont much affect us in CA since only a couple of our corps use empire space at all. Evolution will be even more screwed which is funny
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 20:04:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Hakera on 18/01/2004 20:05:07
This idea is good, but I feel that a fully working system like the current corp one is needed. As has been suggested - just replace player members with corps.
Keep the 3 non-consential slots which can be used for alliances/corps but change war to be only allowed in say 0.5- when it is an alliance war. Otherwise you turn the whole of the empire into a battle zone.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 20:15:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Torvus Jay on 18/01/2004 20:17:53
Quote:
Fighting is where 95% of the high end fun/strategy/tactical play is at. The only thing is, only the corps in the big alliances (and even then mainly only SA, CA and FE) actually get to do PROPER fighting.
lallante we are talking about the exact same thing. Its only fun tho if u have some chance to actually cause trouble to your opponents other wise why not fight only on chaos.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 21:31:00 -
[27]
Edited by: McWatt on 18/01/2004 21:34:50
1.
Quote:
You have Eve the space trading, mining, industry game, and you have Eve the space combat game.
i couldn t disagree more. the good thing about eve is, that you have two ways of fighting.
the bad thing about these changes is, that it takes away one of the options.
2.
Quote:
Reason (... to go to 0.0...) would go in before or at the same time as the war declaration changes.
they definetly should. still, i haven t seen anything that will do this.
having all (research) agents in empire space was not helpfull by the way.
i still think that Tech 2 research/production should happen in <0.5 only. think about it.
mineral transport is flawed.
scordite mining in high sec is, what everything is meassured against.
3. k, as i ve stated elsewhere, i m opposing these changes strongly. i believe that the current war system should be extended, instead of restricted.
here is my idea for an extension to the current system: (hope i won t regret this)
how about giving 3 anti-war slots to each corporation.
i d call them "diplomatic relations" and perhaps link their number to a skill. (or to the number of players in the corp, as war slots should be btw)
these slots would allow you to reject a limited number of wars declared on you and so restrict the "griefing" (if indeed it does exist)
4. what ever you do, don t forget to give advantages to the honest ppl who stand up to any wars declared on them. they are good for the game!
(in the current system, the advantages a corp is giving kind of does this. the new system has little to offer on this subject)
you must not forget, the ppl who accept wars will have a huge competion handicap in high sec. don t make split corporations a must-be.
|
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 22:00:00 -
[28]
This new system would be good, the alliance war declaration would have to be changed tough, make it so that a majority of corps in an alliance have to declare war for them all to be at war or something.
But I really like the point about there being no onesided war declaration. PvP has it's place in 0.0 where the stuff should be that's worth fighting over.
If not all stuff that's worht fighting for is in 0.0, than that's the problem :D
|
BigK
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 22:06:00 -
[29]
Edited by: BigK on 18/01/2004 22:08:08
Quote:
Make it consensual wars for fighting in 1.0 & 0.9 space. Everywhere else as it is atm. Keep your promise of nerfing afk battleship miners in "safe space" and actually inforce the risk vs reward policy you keep claiming to want. The whole risk free out of grid mining in 0.0 just makes the situation worse. If you can have afk indys mining ark/bist in total safety then there is really no reason for a corp to move to 0.0 and be at risk.
I'd take this a step farther. Make the .4 and below the stepping stone as to consentual or not...
People that ***** and moan about the carebears want the game to be played there way, but they don't want a revolving door. Why should someone that doesn't want to engage in PvP be forced too, and PAY for it?
If people want to mine in .8 space, let them. If there aren't any asteroids there to mine, they did it, and can't ***** to anyone. Make them responsibile, eventually their "no risk" mining op will be out of business due to lack of asteroids. To force them to engage in PvP would be silly ... In my mind, it's the same as saying that PvP'ers have to mine for their ships, they can't buy the minerals or the ship, they HAVE to mine 8.5 million Trit, 2 million Pye etc. In my mind it's the same difference certain people are complaining about with the high sec miners. The PvP folks wouldn't like to play the game that way, so why should miners be forced to play a game they don't want to play?
I like the system that TomB has proposed. It eliminates a type of game that noone likes to play. Griefer corps are silly, declaring war on someone for no reason is silly. I'm finding this out now as our corp is at war for no reason. We're not skilled at PvP, sure we can learn, but that's not the game we want and chose to play. The entire game gets disrupted because of a corp that just wants to disrupt our income, however slight is was.
Regardless of my current corp's situation, I really have always felt for those corps starting up. Since hardcore pirates don't automatically have negative security ratings, they can come into any high sec system and pound newer corps into the dirt. Granted, I havn't heard of that happening, but why give pirate companies the the chance?
The system as it is now argueably is not broken, but surely can be made better. The thing to me that would make or break this whole "agreed concept" would be the ability to track individuals / corps via the map, maybe not exact, but to within the hour, and have it update every 2 hours or something pretty frequent.
That's the end of my rant ... hopefully it didn't stray too far from the subject. Regardless of what's implemented, you'll have the share of Eve that loves it, and the share of Eve that hates it, but that's what makes life interesting. Bottom line, if you don't like what's implemented, you always have the option of quitting, although that's not the answer i'd recommend ;)
http://www.dc1-defcon1.com |
Master Scy
|
Posted - 2004.01.18 22:08:00 -
[30]
Quote:
But I really like the point about there being no onesided war declaration. PvP has it's place in 0.0 where the stuff should be that's worth fighting over.
If not all stuff that's worht fighting for is in 0.0, than that's the problem :D
Well, if they remove everything worth ISK from empire space, then there will be no point to have empire space... |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |