| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command
Fleet Coordination Coalition
156
   |
Posted - 2012.03.02 10:33:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.
At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide). That was a very nice and eloquent way of saying: "We have to work with the game as it's handed to us by producers, designers and coders." "We've learned to live with that, so should you, or start shouting at the ones that can actually change it ;) " I have to say that I esp like: "the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal" Which is a very beautiful corp speak version of: "the wardec mechanics blows but the powers that be are sitting on their hands and leave it to GM's to take the flak" ;)
For the most part, you got it right. It's just the last bit that's not quite spot on as CCP is actually overhauling the War dec system (among others) in the coming expansion for mid-year.
http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514
http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Cyprus Black
Cowboy Diplomacy
150
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 11:29:00 -
[32] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.
At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide). I'm a one man corp. Attacking others my own size or larger IS the point and it's not working.
It was originally myself vs a 7 man corp (now six, lol spying is fun). Then it turned into a fight of myself vs over a hundred people in an alliance. I was fine with this. Then the original corp dropped alliance and I can no longer fight them. How is this heavily favoring one side if that one side is just one person?
The complaint to the GM department (for those of you who missed the obvious) is how easy corps can shed off wardecs and how this is a policy problem that was enforced by GMs but no longer.
The GMs solution to the problem is "Wardec them again and see if it sticks this time". That is NOT a solution. That's not even a band-aid to the problem. This is flawed thinking.
-If an arsonist is burning down houses, the solution is not to build more houses.
-If titan pilots found a strange mechanic that allows them to escape HIC bubbles, the solution is not to bring more HIC bubbles.
@ GMs. You acknowledge that there's fundamental problems with the wardec system. Fine. You acknowledge that there are loopholes and scenarios that have the potential to favor one side or another. Ok. But you cannot go bury your head in the sand and pretend the problem is ok now. If wardec mechanic reworks are coming soon that's great, but you need to keep doing your job until it goes live. You can't toss your hands up in the air and say "It's not our problem anymore, we don't have to enforce the rules."
Follow my EvE blog at:
http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/ |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Being the one who announced the lifting of the many arbitrary rules Customer Support had in place to bandaid the war dec system (in case you missed it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19881&find=unread), I can assure you that we have not done this lightly. Many of the issues touched in this thread were indeed governed by additional rules, but those were never really written down anywhere in official capacity (not publicly at least), as they were more often than not relying on a case by case investigation and decision in the first place. That results in a situation that potentially criminalizes players that just don't know better (due to said lack of documentation of those rules that were fuzzy at best), which I am sure you agree is anything but optimal.
While we were fully aware that lifting those rules wasn't an optimal solution either, it was done with two things in mind:
1) ease the process for everyone involved by removing "unwritten laws" and criminalizing players for things that were really only known by "word of mouth", but more importantly:
2) to (re-)identify the many loopholes (which quite frankly exist for either side) of the current war mechanics, in order to try and address them in a more formalized way (read: actual game mechanics rather than unwritten laws) and maybe even find some we may have not been aware of yet.
It's not quite a coincident that the announcement was made back then and that Inferno happens to do stuff with wars either, so stay tuned and do give feedback on the changes in regards to war once they have been explained in deeper detail in Dev Blogs that are likely to come out or start hitting Singularity closer to the release of Inferno. Until then, I fear that you will simply have to bear with the current game mechanics and the fact that corporations can indeed shed their wars at the moment by joining and leaving an alliance the same way as individual pilots can avoid wars altogether by staying in NPC corporations, as already indicated by GM Homonoia previously.
GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
March rabbit
Ganse
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Both references of dec shield usage have been validated by CCP for use as legitimate mechanics. GǪand the question is why
let me guess....
maybe reason is: they are owners of the game? 
|
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
Bringers of Death.
591
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:
This is widely considered a bad decision by the playerbase. Go to any EvE news website and any EvE podcast (yes that is a challenge) and read/hear what they're saying. The message is the same: WTH were the GMs thinking when this came down?
The only people who noticed are the pussies who have to fill killboards shooting careless nooblets and Hulks in high sec. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
Iron Oxide.
95
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back
I think there should just be a system whereby we can decide when we want to participate in PVP, some kind of 'PVP pennant' or 'PVP banner' I don't know I'm sure you can work out a name. Anyway when you have this on you can shoot other players and they can shoot you and when you have it off you cannot shoot other players and they cannot shoot you. This system would basically let us achieve what you outline in your post and should really improve the game for everyone. |
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions
Bloodbound.
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:and when you have it off you cannot shoot other players and they cannot shoot you.
Umm yeah except there should be a big big cooldown period on said "pennant". Like you turn it on and in a couple days you can start shooting people but it's also obvious to everyone that your pennant is turning on so that there are no surprises, and if you turn it off then it goes off immediately (provided you're not actually engaged in combat) but you can't turn it on again for a month.
Why? Oh abuse, etc. Plus decide - either you want to fight or you want to carebear in high sec. Not both. Trying to do both is what the problem really is. The guy who wants to throw rocks and then hide in the crowd and say "rocks? no, not me, I didn't throw rocks". Of course this decision should not be permanent but it should have consequences that you have to live with. Otherwise get the heck out of high sec.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
579
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:11:00 -
[38] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:I'm a one man corp. Attacking others my own size or larger IS the point and it's not working.
It was originally myself vs a 7 man corp (now six, lol spying is fun). Then it turned into a fight of myself vs over a hundred people in an alliance. I was fine with this. Then the original corp dropped alliance and I can no longer fight them. How is this heavily favoring one side if that one side is just one person?
You spend a little isk to go grief another corp through legitimate, albeit nonsensical, game mechanics.
They spend a little isk to grief you back by shuffling your wardec onto an alliance and off themselves through another set of silly game mechanics.
It all sounds very Eve-like to me. Lots of griefing and tears and isk being sink'd. :)
I can't wait to see what the new wardec rules will look like.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
dave3NG
mgfc
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
+1 to be brave enough to suggest WoW game mechanics on the Eve forum. I want an /afk flag until I can quit smoking. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
Bringers of Death.
591
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
I think there should just be a system whereby we can decide when we want to participate in PVP, some kind of 'PVP pennant' or 'PVP banner' I don't know I'm sure you can work out a name.
I agree with this for high sec. If people don't want to pew, they shouldn't have to stay docked because someone else decided they want to pew them in high sec. But fix fleet wars and have some sort of new opt-in aggressive high sec play mechanic that gives you a "hazard pay" bonus to high sec activities if you participate.
Something like: before going into a mission, dead space, or mission mining site you can decide to disable Concord protection. If you do, Concord doesn't charge you for their normal services and you get paid like a 50% bonus or something. Same with courier missions - would give a whole new use for cov ops haulers.
Other than that, suicide gank or live in WHs, low sec, or null if you want to pew. |
Cebraio
Starfire Oasis
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:18:00 -
[41] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
I think there should just be a system whereby we can decide when we want to participate in PVP, some kind of 'PVP pennant' or 'PVP banner' I don't know I'm sure you can work out a name. Anyway when you have this on you can shoot other players and they can shoot you and when you have it off you cannot shoot other players and they cannot shoot you. This system would basically let us achieve what you outline in your post and should really improve the game for everyone.
Go back to WoW?
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
Iron Oxide.
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Wow, its a pretty sad that modern eve cant see an obvious troll like that.
Not long ago that a GM response like that would have looked like a troll. I for one welcome our new WOW-in-space overlords. |
Cebraio
Starfire Oasis
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:32:00 -
[43] - Quote
Yes, it's sad times, because nowadays there are actually people on the forums who would suggest such a thing in all seriousness.
+1 for trolling me. |
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions
Bloodbound.
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote: I for one welcome our new WOW-in-space overlords.
Having never played WoW, I don't know what you're talking about. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a portion of the sandbox should be an opt-in only combat zone - for noob training while they get the hang of the game, or for people who just don't like PvP. I mean, wasn't that the whole point behind system security levels and Concord in the first place? The only real problem is people who want to PvP where they are not supposed to, or with people they are not supposed to, or both.
I for one would be happy with removing concord and security levels entirely and turning all of EVE into one giant arena fractured into different NBSI spaces. But of course the high sec war dec people would never want that - perish the thought of involuntary PvP happening to THEM! |
|
CCP Paradox
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:50:00 -
[45] - Quote
Team Super Friends.
We will rock your world.
CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends
@CCP_Paradox |
|
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
EVE is never safe and we stand by that. I am not a game designer, so I have no true say in this, but I can honestly say that I do not think we will ever allow people to opt out of non-consensual danger and PVP. HOWEVER, it cannot be denied that the wardec system as it currently exists is a tool that is very often used for behavior that I, personally, would call griefing. Attacking a small, easy target for minimal cost is something for a small time criminal, not a PVP stud. Which means, in my personal opinion (in other words, this is not CCP gospel, nor a game design dogma), that paying cheap to gain an easy, semi-defenseless target should be able to be countered by equally cheap measures. EVE is harsh and often unfair, but that does not mean we cannot have some semblance of balance. When there is no balance to be had, the weight should fall in favor of the people wanting a good time. Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:52:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:Team Super Friends.
We will rock your world.
^^ Quoting for truth. They will. I know Paradox already rocked mine.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Shandir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:57:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Having never played WoW, I don't know what you're talking about. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a portion of the sandbox should be an opt-in only combat zone - for noob training while they get the hang of the game, or for people who just don't like PvP. I mean, wasn't that the whole point behind system security levels and Concord in the first place? The only real problem is people who want to PvP where they are not supposed to, or with people they are not supposed to, or both.
I for one would be happy with removing concord and security levels entirely and turning all of EVE into one giant arena fractured into different NBSI spaces. But of course the high sec war dec people would never want that - perish the thought of involuntary PvP happening to THEM!
Where you go off-track is that you think there's an 'opt-in only combat zone'. That doesnt' exist in EVE. There are a few areas where combat is genuinely impossible (docked, CQ, within a shielded POS until after it is reinforced), and everywhere else, combat is a real possibility you must be at least a little prepared for.
High-sec is just that, high - not perfect - security. The point between the security levels is to provide places where it is *mostly* safe to ignore other players, to not be as ready for combat, to fly that super-shiny ship and probably get to keep it long term. This is a balance which many players are okay with.
Suicide ganking, wardecs, canflipping, ninja'ing - these all actually improve the depth of the game, provide interesting things to think about, and make high-sec less bland. I say this as a person who has only ever been on the recieving end of all of these mechanics.
The wardec mechanics need to be changed to increase risk significantly on the attacker's side - also, the mechanics (not the rules) need to be changed to mitigate the dec-shield tactics. What needs to be possible is that the attacker deeply regrets picking a war with 'these guys', because they either had more pilots, more skill, or simply more friends than the attackers could handle. When the attacker can suffer at the hands of an excellent defender as much as a defender suffers at the hands of an excellent attacker, then the mechanics are good. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:01:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Having never played WoW, I don't know what you're talking about. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a portion of the sandbox should be an opt-in only combat zone - for noob training while they get the hang of the game, or for people who just don't like PvP.
That is not the intent.
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
Iron Oxide.
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:07:00 -
[50] - Quote
I would argue if a corp cannot defend itself it (though 3rd party mercs or internally) it should not exist, its not like its 100man corps that are deccing these carebears, its probably about 5 people who want easy ganks because these people are so profit hungry they wont bother with any kind of protection.
Its your duty in eve to make it not worth the effort of others to disrupt what you want to do.
Except even that isn't true.
Its your duty in eve to make deccing your corp ever so slightly less appealing than the corp of the hulk next to you. |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote: I for one welcome our new WOW-in-space overlords. Having never played WoW, I don't know what you're talking about. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a portion of the sandbox should be an opt-in only combat zone - for noob training while they get the hang of the game, or for people who just don't like PvP. I mean, wasn't that the whole point behind system security levels and Concord in the first place? The only real problem is people who want to PvP where they are not supposed to, or with people they are not supposed to, or both. I for one would be happy with removing concord and security levels entirely and turning all of EVE into one giant arena fractured into different NBSI spaces. But of course the high sec war dec people would never want that - perish the thought of involuntary PvP happening to THEM!
Safe zones ( like WoW) would ruin EVE.
For one thing you would have to remove all asteroid belts as you would have people moving in with hulks and stripping the systems bare very quickly. Only way to over come that would be to restrict access to a character's age. Neither of those are ideal.
EVE is a sandbox style MMO and should remain so, afterall there's not many sandbox style MMOs around.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:13:00 -
[52] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:I would argue if a corp cannot defend itself it (though 3rd party mercs or internally) it should not exist, its not like its 100man corps that are deccing these carebears, its probably about 5 people who want easy ganks because these people are so profit hungry they wont bother with any kind of protection.
I have no sympathy for carebears who wish to opt out of PvP entirely, but I also have no sympathy for risk-averse gankbears who absolutely abhor the thought of losing a ship.
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:36:00 -
[53] - Quote
If in-corp awoxing is the only option CCP have left you, then CCP have failed.
You fail if you don't do it. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:37:00 -
[54] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe. Tell me how to suicide gank an highsec POS, please. |
|
GM Homonoia
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
314
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe. Tell me how to suicide gank an highsec POS, please.
While that is possible (in theory), I do admit that is rather impractical.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:41:00 -
[56] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe. Tell me how to suicide gank an highsec POS, please.
The target that was being talked about was a player not a structure. But of course you know that already.
Why not just war-dec the corp the structure belongs to. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2279
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 14:48:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:If in-corp awoxing is the only option CCP have left you, then CCP have failed.
You fail if you don't do it.
Considering that you are now able to get kicked from a corp while in space, that option is gone.
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Orator de Umbras
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:I would argue if a corp cannot defend itself it (though 3rd party mercs or internally) it should not exist, its not like its 100man corps that are deccing these carebears, its probably about 5 people who want easy ganks because these people are so profit hungry they wont bother with any kind of protection.
Its your duty in eve to make it not worth the effort of others to disrupt what you want to do.
Except even that isn't true.
Its your duty in eve to make deccing your corp ever so slightly less appealing than the corp of the hulk next to you.
|
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
Grideris wrote:
For the most part, you got it right. It's just the last bit that's not quite spot on as CCP is actually overhauling the War dec system (among others) in the coming expansion for mid-year.
Actually, CCP is telling us that they are.
But the GM's have to react with the game that they have, not the one promised (possibly drunk) devs.
|
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sasha Azala wrote:Reppyk wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe. Tell me how to suicide gank an highsec POS, please. The target that was being talked about was a player not a structure. But of course you know that already. Why not just war-dec the corp the structure belongs to.
i lol'd. Do you even know what this thread is about?
The problem is that some corps flood the markets with ISK so they might change the economy and affecting every players experience risk-free. They often have a huge impact on the market but they are also "safe" at the same time. Their POS's can't be killed and their barges can only be killed by suiciding yourself. There should be Risk / Reward in eve but atm this game favours reward over risk.
And btw. imho "Industrial-Only" Corps that cant defend themselfs shouldnt exist in a "PVP" game at all. Look for another game or learn to defend yourself. Dont make the game easier for this guys.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |