EVE Search - CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0017 Empire War Dec Mechanics

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0017 Empire War Dec Mechanics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
sexyminer	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:04:00 - [91] Quote: Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. Sean (CSM Darius Johnson) suggested that it might be an option to scale consequences based on the sizes of the warring corporations. in that bit they stat there is no safe way to be in a small group and that the base size of corporation determins who u can war dec (is what i got from it correct me if im wrong) Quote: Various CSM members suggested to allow corporations to auction off the war to mercenaries, who would from that point on participate in the war. CCP understands that the current system needs work and thinks that involving mercenaries shows promise. No solid solution has been come up with but the issue is on the agenda doesnt this conflict with th first of my quotes i mean 2 small corps at war the targeted corp sells/auctions there war decs to a twice as big merc corp isnt that abit overpowered? and u dnt exactly see adolf ****** auctioning of his war with the world when he was loosing did u lol
Mangold Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:56:00 - [92] I really don't see a problem with the current system tbh. I've been on both the giving and recieving end of empire wardecs and that is something that makes this game good. There is no safe space. Don't make it too soft.
Karentaki Gallente Maximum Yarrage	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:36:00 - [93] See my signature ============= RE: The suicide nerf Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say, Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
Coddity	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:42:00 - [94] Originally by: Mr Friendly What's wrong with pay-to-grief? This is Eve, for Christ's sake. It's all about bullying the weak, beating them up, taking their stuff and making them move. Noah and Matt need to go to another game if they think so-called 'griefing' isn't an intrisic and essential part of Eve. If there is a genuine issue about harassment of new players, that's for the GMs to deal with. Otherwise, anything goes. Breaking your opponents spirit is more important than blowing up their ships. The existing war mechanics serve admirably in doing so. THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. I am now concerned about Eve's future if this is what we have to look forward to. Don't go down this road, CCP. This is also my opinion on the matter. Additionally, the implementation of 'victory conditions' or something to that effect will detract from the free-form nature of war declarations, and ultimately dilute the sandbox nature of EVE.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:20:00 - [95] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/08/2008 00:20:55 There is perfectly nothing wrong with "pay to grief". Welcome to EvE. You have options to get out of wardecs, like disbanding corps and the like. Furthermore, the whole victory conditions thing - can we expect to be teleported to a instance so we can do a honourable 5v5 and then whoever kills most ships get victory points, or what? Defenders having to agree with being assaulted? Edit: I was being sarcastic, not providing ideas Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Mu Yaling Greatly Reducing Inflation Every Fight	Posted - 2008.08.08 02:49:00 - [96] CCP, eve is a sandbox game, stop it with "victory conditions" when i decide to war dec a corp because i dislike their CEO, i set my OWN victory conditions, i.e force his corp to disband, deal x amount of financial damage, prevent x/y/z from happening. "Victory conditions" predetermined ones.. no, thats what guild wars has, and some people play guild wars, Eve has player made goals.. remember that sanbox you advertised to me? dont detract from the game because the vocal minority cant keep their mouth shut on the forums AND in local. maybe 1% of the war declarations are "random" I do not declare war on a "random target" and i believe nobody else does either, a lot of time and effort goes into some war efforts, even against "defenceless corps" a lot of research and scouting must be done, and targets only become targets because something about them conflicts with something about the agressor. Signatures must be no larger than 400 x 120. Your signature has been removed. -Taera
Mu Yaling Greatly Reducing Inflation Every Fight	Posted - 2008.08.08 03:38:00 - [97] also.. as another forum dweller put simply, and accurately Since when is a real war dictated by what the defenders want?
Draekas Darkwater Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2008.08.08 04:36:00 - [98] Personally, I like the idea of of multiple types of wardecs, some with victory conditions, and some without. The mercenary idea is also pretty solid. If the current "griefer" wardec option was to still be available, then perhaps another kind of victory condition would work. As a quick idea, perhaps the insurance payouts on attacker ships, where a defender is on the kill mail, would be split in some way. Some/none to the attacker who died, and some/all would go to the defender corp. So in effect, you could choose to "pirate" in high sec, with the stipulation that you no longer get full insurance when you die fighting the folks you wardecced (or the mercs hired by them to fight back). For the defenders (and hired mercs), this would be like a bounty system. You get paid for each attacker you kill. Whether it should be the entire insurance payment, or just part, would have to be balanced. Maybe it would depend on the sec rating of the system where it happened, sec status of the attacker killed, or something else. Also, the payment is only for kills in high sec, and not for any kills in low/null sec.
Phaedruss	Posted - 2008.08.08 05:24:00 - [99] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. War decs are made by those with their own goals and agenda. Just because victory conditions aren't a part of the mechanics doesn't mean they don't exist. Why do you feel the need to interfere in everything? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Valentijn (CSM Dierdra Vaal) commented that under the current system, the defender has no control over the war and the attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as they keep paying the bills. He also observed that there currently is no determined end goal to the war itself. The defender can choose to fight back and attempt to make the war unprofitable for the attacker. They can also choose not to. What exactky is the problem, why do you feel the need to impose CCP conditions and goals on wars? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Matt (CCP) stated that wardecs are necessary so corporations can attack each otherÆs logistic chains in Empire, but that there are often wars started without reason, simply to get random victims to gank and grief. The system should be balanced so that the first aspect is not hindered while the second aspect is deterred. Again, why does there have to be a reason other than killing and pillaging? That's what half of Eve enjoys doing, so why attempt to deter it? The other half gets enough protection as it is by hiding in NPC corps. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. Sean (CSM Darius Johnson) suggested that it might be an option to scale consequences based on the sizes of the warring corporations. Grouping together for safety works or doesn't work depending on how well the group is organized. Why on earth should the mere existence of a group give safety? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Various CSM members suggested to allow corporations to auction off the war to mercenaries, who would from that point on participate in the war. CCP understands that the current system needs work and thinks that involving mercenaries shows promise. No solid solution has been come up with but the issue is on the agenda CCP understands very little and it concerns me that CSMs are jumping on the CCP bandwagon.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.08 05:30:00 - [100] Quote: Grouping together for safety works or doesn't work depending on how well the group is organized. Why on earth should the mere existence of a group give safety? I agree with everything you said except this. It's not that the existence of a group gives safety. The problem is that too often, huge PVP corp finds smaller corp and wardecs them with no real disincentive. It basically means "Join a huge corp or don't join one at all", which is stupid. Scalable payments based on the relative sizes of the parties in the war would be fine. Enough to discourage random wardecs on tiny corps, not enough to stop people from doing it if they actively dislike said corp.

Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.08.08 05:52:00 - [101] Originally by: Phaedruss Grouping together for safety works or doesn't work depending on how well the group is organized. Why on earth should the mere existence of a group give safety? The point being made is that small corps are softer targets than larger ones and are just as easy to wardec and attack. Instead of small corps being warred by corps their own size, they are being sucessfully warred by much larger entities than themselves. As has already been said, this is a downward pressure on small corps and pushes people to join bigger ones that are less likely to be wardecced. A small rebalancing of the fee system based on corp size should do the trick. You'll still be able to declare war on a small corp but it'll cost you a lot more than fighting one your own size. I'm afraid that my suggestions may be lost at the bottom of page 3 but chances are CCP won't even read them anyway, the thread's a month old. In my considered opinion, CCP need to use a very light touch with this issue rather than completely redefining the purpose and uses of wardecs. Wardecs are a social tool and screwing with its current use will ** a lot of people off and detract from EVE's political and social style as a sandbox game. There's nothing wrong with social darwinism or pay-to-pvp and non-consentual wardecs are NOT griefing by CCP's official knowledgebase definition of the term. There's no need to completely redesign the entire system or force people to play a different way than they already do. As per my suggestions on page 3, some additional optional** tools for victory conditions and a rebalancing of war fees is all that's needed. Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support.
Ashley Sky The Eleventh Commandment Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.12 21:01:00 - [102] I like how they are "just figuring this out" as if they didn't intend this with their original design, even though it's been going on for nearly the entire history of EVE. And they are just now noticing this? Could the GM/Devs really be this ignorant? Smells like brown thumbs to me.
Ashlee Darksky Minmatar Forum Insurgency	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:45:00 - [103] Quote: the defender has no control over the war and the attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as they keep paying the bills. He also observed that there currently is no determined end goal to the war itself. Isn't that what happens in wars? The defender must either prevail by whatever means, maybe asking for help, or they must surrender. In this case, leave the corp, pay the ransom, whatever that might be. (FYI - I have been on both sides of this!) Quote: but that there are often wars started without reason There is infrequenlty a good reason for starting a war, but they usually happen! I fail to see what point is trying to be made here. Quote: Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. By the very statement above however, Ank is in fact saying the Corporations and Alliances are bad because they encourage you to get attacked? Rather than allowing game mechanics to control events, let the players. A new Corp is a prime target, sure. However their CEO should have made plans for this, either with friendly other Corps or have some isk to hire someone to help them out. Without this, the CEO has failed and does not deserve that Corp. When it splits, the players will go to another bigger Corp... and... um... guess what! Be safe with other players! Quote: Sean (CSM Darius Johnson) suggested that it might be an option to scale consequences based on the sizes of the warring corporations. The consequences are; You win You lose You surrender The Corp splits Quote: Various CSM members suggested to allow corporations to auction off the war to mercenaries, who would from that point on participate in the war. CCP understands that the current system needs work and thinks that involving mercenaries shows promise. No solid solution has been come up with but the issue is on the agenda Now you are talking more sense! I personally believe that some of the CSM are being narrow minded and on a single track, and this is to dumb things down and take the control from the player and put it into the game. Frankly this worries me because it resembles Governments controlling people by rules, regulations and redtape rather than using common sense. Example: New roads on new housing estates in the UK are short and have many sharp right and turns. The reason? To stop boy racers driving at 90 miles an hour in a built up area. This is what the CSM and CCP are moving towards. The real answer to the problem, is not to hit everyone with that "punishment" but to educate them better. In the case here, drivers to be made aware of what they are doing and face the consequences if they don't. The same applies to EVE. Rather than changing the road setup (read game mechanics), CCP and the CSM need to educate and inform the players of what is expected along that road. The protection comes from oneself, and learning how to do it not from a set of strictures and rules that force actions upon you. This simply turns people into mindless robots following instructions. I have experienced all of this first hand, and I still play EVE. I read once on the forum/website as my first day as a newbie a phrase that got me very far and made sure I was safe.... "Assume everyone wants to kill you" Excercise caution, learn, educate yourself and learn how to look after yourself. Do not rely on the "system" to protect you, because the moment you do that, you surrender yourself to that system and become a mindless robot to it. Link to what I'd said in a previous topic that lead me here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=860923&page=5#142 --- > I see fail everywhere, and it's like they don't even know they're failing > Bring me the heads of 10 carebears, 5 bottles of BBQ sauce, firewood and a box of matches!
Nilder Shadowfiyah 3rd Millennium Group	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:04:00 - [104]
Karando Random Goods	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:39:00 - [105] Originally by: Ashlee Darksky Quote: Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. By the very statement above however, Ank is in fact saying the Corporations and Alliances are bad because they encourage you to get attacked? No, she says that EVE is bad because you can PvP. I guess her "game developer" job means she is making 2D flash games.
Natasha Avion Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.04 20:45:00 - [106] Sorry for being late to the thread, I am fairly new to the game. Being in my first war I started looking around. The biggest problem is being the defender there is no way to end the war. The attacking corp in not active so I have not seen any targets to attack. The idea of the command center that someone proposed is a great idea. Probably should require the size and toughness of the center be an option for the attacker. Bigger and harder to destroy makes the war more expensive to start and maintain. I may mostly run an industrial corp but I am not anti-pvp. If I could end a war by going out and fighting over something, anything, you would see us doing more than sitting around doing our trading waiting for this to end. The current system encourages avoidance since most actions the defender takes cannot actually end the war. There needs to be risk on both sides. Putting an object in space, that when destroyed ends the war seems like a great answer. The attacker gets to decide where and what, effectively dictating the terms but the attacker at least has an option to put an end to the conflict.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.10.06 11:00:00 - [107] Originally by: Karando No, she says that EVE is bad because you can PvP. I guess her "game developer" job means she is making 2D flash games. Nice to see you so aptly demonstrate your own qualities for employment (i.e. none) - perhaps you should read threads like this before mouthing off at someone. This sets aside the fact that you're talking rubbish - nobody has said EVE is bad because you can PvP. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Zixwro	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:29:00 - [108] Imo, there needs to be some sort of interim solution if the mechanic will be a while changing. My friends and I are suffering under a "ransom demand" seemingly random war dec. Some have already quit the game, and I'm seriously considering it myself. This type of event is clearly part of the current sanctioned griefing issue and if a corp is able to present proof that a war falls under this type, it should be eligible for a harassment petition. Only until the mechanic can be fixed.
Miz Cenuij	Posted - 2008.10.07 06:06:00 - [109] Great, another carebearification of EVE. Fantactic. "Men are going to die... and i'm going to kill them"
Political Prisoner Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.10.07 07:01:00 - [110] 1) If you can't defend yourself or withstand a war .. you don't DESERVE the luxury of a corporation. 2) If a BAND of corporations CAN'T defend themselves ... they don't deserve the luxury of an ALLIANCE. Back to the SAFETY of NPC corps for you then. Respectfully, Political Prisoner

Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.10.13 06:01:00 - [111] Lets say corp 1 wardecs corp 2. they pay like 2 million and thats it? 2million is nothing. My corp has 5 standing with concord. We are bestest friends. But it only takes 2 million to make them turn on me? Even when I more or less keep my nose clean. No piracy, no resource stealing, no anything. I dont bother anyone. If concord can be bribed by people who concord hates for a measly 2million... my being best friends with concord should mean I could pay 2million per week to concord to be perfectly immune to war decs. But that doesnt make sense. If concord is so corrupt... they honestly should auction the wardec off to the highest bidder. If I'm such a pain my enemy should be willing to pay 500million per week? If thats what I will pay? The auction can literally work the same way as normal auctions do. 10% increase per bid. This will give true value to how much corp/alliance 1 will pay to wardec the bad person; or at least in turn causing the enemy to lose funds to concord for continued safety. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"
Zathrus	Posted - 2008.10.17 14:05:00 - [112] Please just let us war dec the NPC corps.
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.10.17 17:27:00 - [113] changing empire wars in any way is really a horrible idea. The way it is now is most realistic. Real wars don't have god damn victory conditions dictated by some third party organization.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.10.18 01:05:00 - [114] Originally by: Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.10.18 01:06:00 - [115] The way it is now sucks. EVE is an MMO, and you're ONLY vulnerable to unrestricted wardecs if you leave the NPC corp. People shouldn't be penalized for that...not to mention the fact that the current system strongly discourages smaller corps from forming. Yes wars should still exist but not in the same form. Change wardecs around and change the way NPC corps work and problem solved. Originally by: Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Unholythough helper	Posted - 2008.10.27 15:46:00 - [116] Well i think all will agree that the cost to make a war dec is low. 2 or 3 mil wathever is pocket change if your a player with 10mil sp. More variations should be there. One thing i didn't see suggested from all the "obvious" solutions is make the cost of wardecs related to the security rating. It would be a simple system. you choice till which security you want to wardec to apply. war till .5 sec cheap .6 more expensive and make .8 very expensive option.
Dizeezer Velar Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.10.27 15:58:00 - [117] Taken from Zulupark's Q&A session where he answered my question about any proposed changes to empire wardecs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=905941 Dizeezer Velar Empire wardecs: No changes planned that I know of. Good btw, no changes are necessary.
Holythoughs Crusader	Posted - 2008.10.27 22:56:00 - [118] Edited by: Holythoughs Crusader on 27/10/2008 23:03:38 Thats just your opinion. Let face it they claim off CCP that war decleration is this way because of realisme is absolutly bogus. No country will allow corporations killing each other over just by paying the police a small handout. If they would want to add some realisme they bribe of the police force in this case concord should atleast be varly extensive and also related to standing of both corpses with that police force, size of the corporations. I all for having corps wars but paying 2 mil and start an all out war is just plain rediculous. It's not a war from country to country thats factional warefare it's corporations warefare within a legal boundary. To make an comparison it's like paying a hunderd bucks too the police to get a licenses to kill all that have a job at a particular coorporation. The maffia would love it but atleast they know thats never going to happen.
Holythoughs Crusader	Posted - 2008.10.27 23:25:00 - [119] not that it really matters. small corporations have a simple option to counteract a war declarations. just create an executive commander and you have a new corporation for probably about 2 mil or less and you could do this until all possible war declarations are used up. if a small corps plays it smart they corps that tries they war declaration will tire easily. with only 2 accounts you can totally beat war declaring corporation that just are there for griefing around the bush
Ixion Dracolich Amarr Comrades in Construction	Posted - 2008.10.28 13:54:00 - [120] Establish Wardec cost based upon CONCORD standing of both parties. - Cost increases the lower the aggressors standing - Cost increases the higher the "victims" standing. In addition the act of declaring a War lowers the agressors standing.with CONCORD. Should remove a few of the so called "random" wardec's. Increases the risk to the agressors. Does NOT prevent Wardecs from occurring. Note: No values given for standing modifiers as that would need to be determined from testing.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.