Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why redesign?
- Inferno was war themed, therefore we wanted to look at it.
- Big enough problem to dedicate a team to.
- Examined and war system was underutilized. lacks clear concept. Used for mutual fights or griefing
- Decided to give wars more structure. Make them harder to get out of.
- Does this fit all the game play styles?
- Explored several designs on how to fit more aggressive/hardcore war system
- Kept it simple in the end: Every player corp needs to accept that they can be war decc'd regardless of play style.
- The only way to avoid war decs is to stay in an NPC corp. Need to keep an eye on this.
- Players will have more options when conducting war. More ways to get involved. More ways to counter
- Declaring also has higher changes of backfiring, keeping them in check. Declaring war is more of a commitment.
- Wanted to add more clarity want to expand system to be become interesting outside of hi sec.
- To do this, wars need to provide solid structure and provide more information
Goals
- Tighten so it becomes clear how start/proceed/end
- Make clear how the war is progressing for strategic and status
- Make fighting a war a viable career path for merc corps.
Summary so far.
- Wars are harder to get out of
- wars have better structure
- Info about status is improved
- More options for corps at war
- Career path for Merc Corps.
All still work in progress. Slated for inferno release. Stuff is subject to change.
- Removes war shielding: Remove number of wars defender is in from the war cost forumal. Number of wars the aggressor is in is still a modifier. *applause here*
- War shedding (phony alliance) Corps leaving an Alliance continue all wars the alliance has as a new independent war. *applause here*
- If we find further ways to escape, they will be plugged. Policy is to make wars more impactful, therefore you can't easily escape them
- Base prices is now 20mill, rather than 2. Improves isk sink and makes it more of a consideration
- Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
- CEO/Director makes decision. No more voting *applause*
- Wars can no longer be retracted by the aggressor when their want. Therefore more committing.
- Defender can only declare war mutual in 24 hours before war starts. Will remain mutual. Undecided on this one yet.
- Wars will last for a minimal of a week unless one side surrenders.
- Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp.
- Either side can offer a surrender, but can only have one offer at a time. Offer can include ISK. Other side has 24hours to respond or make a counter offer.
- If surrender is concluded, enforced peace period of a week starts between corps. You cannot war dec each other for 7 days
War Report
- All losses inflicted by each side are tracked in a war report
- Details include links killmails, ship classes, timelines for major battles. Losses in ISK/ships.
- Reports is available to all war participants
- Everything can now have value calculated for it. (e.g. titans)
- Killmails have had face lift, more graphics and more data. Shouldn't affect API, but will assist if it does.
- In game killmail looks like a killboard page.
War history
- Every corp and alliance will have a publicly available war history. All active and concluded wars
- Shows losses inflicted on both sides in the war and allies involved. Details not nailed down yet.
- Rank lists based on win/loss ration isk values etc. Probably not in Inferno, but planned
- Character war history, show if the character deserts corps! Probably not in Inferno, but planned.
War Options
- Defender corp can call an ally to their aid. This can be another corp or alliance. An aggressor can never call an ally. Joins after 24hours of accepting
- There restrictions to how many allies a corp can have *applause*
- Ally joins the defender on the report and stays till war ends.
- Ally contract can involve isk. Paid up front and does not recur every week.
Mercenary Marketplace
- Working title not in game name.
- Get to it through War ui or contract ui
- CEO/Director can create new type of contract. Tentatively called Ally Negotiation. More like an application of willing to help, or notice of needing help.
- Negotiation can occur over contract. Accept, Decline, Counter-offer
- Several entities can negotiate, but only one offer can be accepted.
- Considering Treaty systems. Non-aggression pacts etc
- Other things in the mix, but not being released yet as under heavy debate.
Questions:
- Current cost: 20mill + 500,000 per member in target corp.
- Review the rating of allys/contracts. Not in inferno, but being considered.
Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
gfldex
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Before the whining that is ENDLESS starts I would like to point out that war decs have a function. It tells a bad CEO that he or she is a bad CEO and need to change that. And yes, small *beep*y corps are *beep*ed.
Props to Velicia Tuoro for shamelessly fast typing. :) The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
There are going to be so many new mercenary corps!
As for carebear corps not being able to 'take control of the wardec and stopping it themselves' : just hire a while punch of mercs to pound them into submission. Once allied, the mercs will remain around and at some point the wardeccer will just stop paying. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Props to Velicia Tuoro for shamelessly fast typing. :)
My fingers hurt after this one!
Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Great tweet here:
Quote:Matt B GÇÅ @Northern_Goblin So that's 770 mil a week to dec E-Uni folks. Have fun with that. #EVEFanfest #Tweetfleet
http://tinyurl.com/7jot4up Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Maria Solano
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Looking forward to this :)) |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Best question I've seen on fanfest so far (not mine, wish I could take credit).
Why are they going to mark/penalize (I'm not exactly sure how, missed that part) people that leave a corp during a war, but not botters?
|
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
114
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
I wonder why they haven't allowed for a non-wardec option at the inception of a corp. So the corp cannot take part in wardecs at all EVER for the serious carebear high-sec miners/researchers ? My EVE YouTube Channel |
Tam Althor
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
wow, this guy keeps saying they want war decs hardcore, but the aggressor is always allowed to drop the dec by not paying. Make it real hardcore.... you start a dec you get locked into it no matter how many allies your target brings until you surrender. |
Lucas Kell
Fodder.
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wow this war dec stuff seems like its going to kill small starting up corps completely. Now there's no way out of wars, no downside for aggressors but a massive downside for defenders. It's basically going to be, disband your corp or log off.
There needs to be a downside for the aggressor too. Like they said, most war dec corps are made of alts. Hell, my alts are in war dec corps lol. |
|
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:Best question I've seen on fanfest so far (not mine, wish I could take credit). Why are they going to mark/penalize (I'm not exactly sure how, missed that part) people that leave a corp during a war, but not botters?
Because bot tengu #59356373208346076 could really care less if it was caught for botting, as the account ban it will get is far more serious. |
Benny Ohu
The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tam Althor wrote:wow, this guy keeps saying they want war decs hardcore, but the aggressor is always allowed to drop the dec by not paying. Make it real hardcore.... you start a dec you get locked into it no matter how many allies your target brings until you surrender.
If the defender has balls and makes it mutual the aggressor cannot pull out until they surrender. |
gfldex
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:Why are they going to mark/penalize (I'm not exactly sure how, missed that part) people that leave a corp during a war, but not botters?
Because of alts.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Geister Bob
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Heh, I think I saw my first DEV flee from a presentation(the Warddec pres.). Didn-¦t look too happy about the round-table later either.
And come on, the removal of the rise in wardec fee by number of corps who have declared will be a total rapetrain by alt higsec campers. That-¦s just what struck me from watching the presentation. Haven-¦t thought much about it yet, too fricken early for that. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Great tweet here: Quote:Matt B GÇÅ @Northern_Goblin So that's 770 mil a week to dec E-Uni folks. Have fun with that. #EVEFanfest #Tweetfleet http://tinyurl.com/7jot4up
Not to mention that EVE-U could probably get a ton of PvP-orientated corps to ally with them for free.
That's also why small corps really shouldn't be too scared of wardecs. 25 million ISK for a 5-men corp is just not worth it. And even then they can likely get a ton of cheap mercs to join them.
The amount of people that are going merc in Inferno is going to be insane. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't like the new war dec thingy...it looks like they replaced a fcked up system with another fcked up system, but renamed "retract war" with "don't pay bills anymore". |
ColumnaLcis
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Well this looks interesting indeed. Noir. Academy is Open -á-á-áPVP with purpose. -á-á-áOrganisation, Discipline, Practice. http://noirmercs.com |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:BeanBagKing wrote:Best question I've seen on fanfest so far (not mine, wish I could take credit). Why are they going to mark/penalize (I'm not exactly sure how, missed that part) people that leave a corp during a war, but not botters? Because bot tengu #59356373208346076 could really care less if it was caught for botting, as the account ban it will get is far more serious.
First and second bans are only temporary (what is it? like 3 days or something?) so they aren't really that serious. As for alts, I'm sure some are. I think the point is more that this is something a lot more players have suggested and care about in the past, and is certainly seen as something more serious (from, IMO, both an in game and EULA perspective). With the blemish thing, they've shown they are willing to "mark" players, so why would they not go ahead and do it to botters, even if 90% of them don't care. I'd say 90% of people that bail on a corp during a war probably don't care either. |
Gordon Fell
Acura Tech
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Geister Bob wrote:Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. (Corp being decced: maybe other way around...)
Seems more like it should cut both ways, have the modifier mix **** up anything but a 'fair' fight (rougly equal numbers against equal numbers). I feel cheap grieving is always lame; if you want to screw someone, pay up in sec and gank ship isk. |
|
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
new cost to dec eve uni will be 826mil. 1552 members eve uni 50mil ally and 776mil for members 500.000 isk per member |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong White-Lotus
472
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Wish, guys. Epic flashback too 2004. Follow me back to the 1st famfests.
All of these changes were introduced by hilmar in 2004. I remember, I was there. Why it stayed on the back burner for so long....
...
Oh ! And remember eve used to have s page that listed all current, future, and big dream feature lists. Why can't we have the cool future plans page ?? So we can keep up with what you guys are seeing coming up some day soon
Well this talk he just gave us, was that old 2004 proposal.. I wonder why it took them so long to bring it to light? It was promised in 2005 by the latest, and only now it might be happening? We'll see what happens. |
Ion Dogun
Drunken Fighters
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:16:00 -
[23] - Quote
The defender can make a war mutual only in the first 24 hours befor the war is going to start. Which highsecbased industrycorp with no interest and skills in pvp will do this? But the guy at the podium seems like having not done his homework properly only presenting some slight changes and raised cost for wardecs while not tackling the coreproblems. Im very diasapointed. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
1403
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
On balance I like it.
Whats the situation with alliance on alliance warfare though in terms of declaration costs do we know?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
264
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:20:00 -
[25] - Quote
I like, or am neutral to, most of these changes. However, costs scaling up with the size of the defender corporation is absolutely insane. So, it's going to cost my tiny corporation a few billion ISK per week to declare war on a major power bloc? That's absolutely ridiculous. Member counts will be the new dec shield, with corporations creating trial accounts, filling them with characters, and padding their member counts.
If anything, the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. |
Gummy Plaude
University of Caille Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:20:00 -
[26] - Quote
I have mixed feelings here.
War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.
In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.
One of the main advices given to new players is to join a corporation, but for a large part of hisec corporations wardecs are periods where they're strongly encouraged not to undock. I can't see this changing with the new system. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I like, or am neutral to, most of these changes. However, costs scaling up with the size of the defender corporation is absolutely insane. So, it's going to cost my tiny corporation a few billion ISK per week to declare war on a major power bloc? That's absolutely ridiculous. Member counts will be the new dec shield, with corporations creating trial accounts, filling them with characters, and padding their member counts.
If anything, the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one.
The Dev indicated that trial accounts wouldn't count towards the total member number in determining cost. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
264
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:27:00 -
[28] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:I like, or am neutral to, most of these changes. However, costs scaling up with the size of the defender corporation is absolutely insane. So, it's going to cost my tiny corporation a few billion ISK per week to declare war on a major power bloc? That's absolutely ridiculous. Member counts will be the new dec shield, with corporations creating trial accounts, filling them with characters, and padding their member counts.
If anything, the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. The Dev indicated that trial accounts wouldn't count towards the total member number in determining cost. What about inactive accounts?
I want to repeat myself: the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. Just thing about it, it makes perfect sense. A large corporation declaring on a small one creates quite an imbalance, and should pay more to make up for the extreme numerical superiority it possesses. A small corporation should pay less because it is taking on a more difficult target, and because under the proposed system, taking on very large targets will be virtually impossible from a financial standpoint.
Also, have they mentioned removing the 3-war-limit from corporations? |
Sneakybustard
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:28:00 -
[29] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:new cost to dec eve uni will be 826mil. 1552 members eve uni 50mil ally and 776mil for members 500.000 isk per member
and that would be 4billion 126million to dec goonswarm plus 50 mil ofc with current 8252 members.. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
188
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:Wars can no longer be retracted by the aggressor when their want. Therefore more committing...
Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp. Hmm. This seems contradictory. |
|
gfldex
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:37:00 -
[31] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:What about inactive accounts?
How about chars online within the last week? That function is in game already, would be easy to implement.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Diva Ex Machina wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:I like, or am neutral to, most of these changes. However, costs scaling up with the size of the defender corporation is absolutely insane. So, it's going to cost my tiny corporation a few billion ISK per week to declare war on a major power bloc? That's absolutely ridiculous. Member counts will be the new dec shield, with corporations creating trial accounts, filling them with characters, and padding their member counts.
If anything, the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. The Dev indicated that trial accounts wouldn't count towards the total member number in determining cost. What about inactive accounts? I want to repeat myself: the cost of war should scale inversely with member size. A large corporation declaring war against a small one should be paying proportionally more than a small corporation declaring war on a large one. Just thing about it, it makes perfect sense. A large corporation declaring on a small one creates quite an imbalance, and should pay more to make up for the extreme numerical superiority it possesses. A small corporation should pay less because it is taking on a more difficult target, and because under the proposed system, taking on very large targets will be virtually impossible from a financial standpoint. Also, have they mentioned removing the 3-war-limit from corporations?
The subject of trial and inactive characters came up during the Q&A at the end. The Dev agreed that trial accounts shouldn't be counted in working out the total but I don't recall whether or not he said anything about inactive characters or same account alts. Maybe someone else knows?
I won't argue that the relative sizes of the two corps involved should be factored in.
ETA: I meant I don't disagree with you on that. |
Fradle
Bite Me inc Exhale.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
Props to the OP for typing all that. Cheers dude, alot to think about and get excited for ^_^ |
Dirael Papier
Blackdust Citex Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:What about inactive accounts? How about chars online within the last week? That function is in game already, would be easy to implement. ^ I like that plan.
But yeah, if they only exclude trial accounts from the member count, that will do absolutely nothing to keep people from artificially boosting their corp count for a decshield.
Make tons of buddy trial accounts, each having PLEX as their reward. Recycle one PLEX to sub them all. Join them all to the corp. Eventually they'll all unsub, but they'll still be full-account members.
The minimum requirement for members that count towards war cost should be that they are currently subscribed, but this is exploitable as well.
Each account has 3 characters, so a corp requires each member to have their 2 spare characters in the corp as well. Thus the corp size is tripled at no spare cost, meaning a war dec costs about 3 times more.
Only counting members active in the last week however is interesting. Could still work around it (the above, except each member logs in all of their characters at least once per week) but this is kinda beyond what could reasonably be planned for.
TL;DR At the minimum only CURRENTLY SUBSCRIBED accounts should count towards the defender's member count as far as war costs are concerned. Only discounting trial characters does nothing. Only counting characters active within the last week is an interesting idea as well. |
gfldex
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ion Dogun wrote:The defender can make a war mutual only in the first 24 hours befor the war is going to start. Which highsecbased industrycorp with no interest and skills in pvp will do this?
Non, and that's the point. You may have noticed that you can define divisions for any player run corp. One of then should be Space Hurts and another Ground Hurts, shouldn't it? In the end it will benefit those carebears that survive because competition is driven out of the game. Less competition bigger margins. Bigger margins more profit. And don't we all love profits?
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:05:00 -
[36] - Quote
Badly planed changes.
All I can say about this :(.
Still far to easy to wardec helpless industrials (ak grif industrials) as the called prices are just bad jokes (anything less then 10 BILLION/week is a joke).
And if by exident the agressor wardeced a alt-corp where the mains can fight ... the agressor can just decide to not pay and stop the war.
In addition the big problem of neutral-rep was cut out to the crim-departement <- right hand does not know what the left hand do @CCP? Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
768
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
Assuming that:
- CCP wants wardec fees to be more expensive - CCP wants costs to scale based on the number of war targets (members) in the target (defender) corporation - The member count only includes active, paying accounts (no trial or expired accounts)
Then the 20M + 500k/member fee is a nice idea, but is horribly unbalanced. It needs to be a diminishing returns formula where it scales up rapidly early, but then starts to scale very badly as the member count goes up into the larger bits.
There are a few choices, which meets CCP's goals without being as overpowered as linearly increasing the wardec cost based on target size.
Using Sqrt() vs CubeRoot() as the scaling method. With the sqrt() method, N=6000 would cost 77x the cost to declare N=1. That's too big of a difference. With CubeRoot(N), the N=6000 vs N=1 ratio is only 18:1. So corporation size still matters, but is not ridiculously overpowered.
a) Cost = 50M * CubeRoot(members)
N=1 starts at 50M, N=10 is 107M, N=100 is 232M, N=500 is 396M, N=2500 is 678M, N=6000 is 908M
b) Cost = 20M + (40M * CubeRoot(members))
N=1 starts at 60M, N=10 is 106M, N=100 is 206M, N=500 is 337M, N=2500 is 563M, N=6000 is 747M
Personally, I'm in favor of the (b) option, with the first number between 20M and 50M. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:06:00 -
[38] - Quote
Since my thread is being ignored *sniff* and this one is getting the attention, I'll dump this in here.
Glad to see there is no "wars have to be mutual" option - helps keep Eve dangerous.
Is the Merc Market place the only way to be or have an ally? And if that is the case, is there a "private" contract option available?
Blemish is a good way to help counter corp hopping, but I would also suggest that there be an ISK cost to Concord involved to be made by the individual player. A lower cost for small corp players, and a larger cost for players in large corps. Make it have a cost to hop corps beyond just a bad mark.
The cease fire situation, where after the war the war can not resume between the two for seven days, that should be extended to 14 days. Would also argue, any corp that has had a war end in the past 14 days AND they surrender for over one billion OR had a merc contract for a cost of more than one billion ISK, the cost to war dec that corp is triple in that 14 days. Helps reduce the incentive for ISK pinata.
One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:06:00 -
[39] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Quote:Wars can no longer be retracted by the aggressor when their want. Therefore more committing...
Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp. Hmm. This seems contradictory.
Each war runs in week cycles. You pay each week to extend it. But you can't drop the war during a cycle as the aggressor.
I.e. small corp declares war on what looks like a juicy target. They are in it for a week. Within a day of it starting, the declaring corp is suffering a lot of losses because of the allies. They want to drop the war because it is limiting their ability to do anything else, but can't. They have to wait out the full week. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote: TL;DR At the minimum only CURRENTLY SUBSCRIBED accounts should count towards the defender's member count as far as war costs are concerned.
He confirmed this at the end of QA. I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
|
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:11:00 -
[41] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:Dirael Papier wrote: TL;DR At the minimum only CURRENTLY SUBSCRIBED accounts should count towards the defender's member count as far as war costs are concerned.
He confirmed this at the end of QA.
Not confirmed. Current build doesn't work this way, but they acknowledged it would be a good idea and are going to look at it. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
267
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
I typed this up quite a while ago, but I think it's as relevant now as ever:
http://eve-search.com/thread/20581-1
I'll paste the important section below:
The New War Cost Formula
- Make a single entity's outgoing wars completely independent of each other. - Make no distinction in cost between wars where alliances are involved, and wars where they are not. - Potentially shorten the war duration. - Make outgoing corporate war votes instantaneous, the same way allied votes are. - Adopt a new formula that determines war cost, as follows:
War cost is determined by the amount of characters in the corporation/alliance that declares war, and balanced against the amount of players in the corporation/alliance that receives it.
The base per-character unit cost of war should be an amount of ISK that will be fairly determined by the devs and CSM. For the sake of example and simplicity, let's say that value is 1 million ISK. A 50-person corporation declaring war would have a base bill of 50 million ISK per week.
Now comes the balancing part, and it's really simple: simply multiply the base bill by the ratio of characters in the entity that declares war versus characters in the entity that is declared upon. For example, if corporation A (50 members) declares war, and corporation B receives it, then:
If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/10)] = 250 million ISK. If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/50)] = 50 million ISK. If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/100)] = 25 million ISK.
Now, what happens if corporation B has incoming wars from multiple entities? Once again, the answer is simple. Simply adjust the bill by the new ratio of total characters belonging to all entities that declare versus the total character count of the receiving entity. For example, let's say corporations X (10 members) and Y (40 members) join the hostilities by declaring war on corporation B. The base bill now becomes:
If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/10)] = 1,000 million (1 billion) ISK. If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/50)] = 200 million ISK. If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/100)] = 100 million ISK.
This "base bill" should then be proportionately split between corporations A, X, and Y (corporation A pays 50%, X pays 10%, and Y pays 40%).
Adunh Slavy wrote:The cease fire situation, where after the war the war can not resume between the two for seven days, that should be extended to 14 days. Would also argue, any corp that has had a war end in the past 14 days AND they surrender for over one billion OR had a merc contract for a cost of more than one billion ISK, the cost to war dec that corp is triple in that 14 days. Helps reduce the incentive for ISK pinata. This would be too easily exploited by alt corps.
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Each war runs in week cycles. You pay each week to extend it. But you can't drop the war during a cycle as the aggressor.
I.e. small corp declares war on what looks like a juicy target. They are in it for a week. Within a day of it starting, the declaring corp is suffering a lot of losses because of the allies. They want to drop the war because it is limiting their ability to do anything else, but can't. They have to wait out the full week. They should make the ability to sue for peace work in both directions.
|
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:14:00 -
[43] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote: One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc.
This sound nice.
- attacker set's goal: "war end when we destroyed POS x" (as excample) - defender has to know about to goal !!!
Now defender can decide to defend the tower OR to let it as undefended as posible to let the war end quick.
But as long as it is posible to start wardecs without any goal ... they have no deeper impact and so are meaningless. Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
662
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:19:00 -
[44] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
- Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
...
- Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp.
...
- Current cost: 20mill + 500,000 per member in target corp.
- Question about only using subscribed accounts in inflating costs. Agreed this was a good suggestion and looking at it.
First: Thank you for this excellent list. Very well put together, this is exactly what I wanted.
All of this, I really like. The overall look of these improvements is fantastic, and I really like the way CCP is taking this -- I'm very relieved. Almost everything that we discussed in the round table has already been discussed separately by CCP as something they are already looking at.
BUT
That last bit is SUPER important. If it costs more PER MEMBER in the defending corporation, we will get bloated super-corps. 500k per subscribed account, I can possibly accept; per character, absolutely not. Directors of corps will flood their member numbers with useless alts to protect themselves from incoming wars; we can't allow this to happen. In fact, even if only unique subscribed accounts work, how can you make it safe from exploits? What if three friendly corporations make a pact and put their un-used alts into each other's corps? I don't see how you can determine this number.
I have already made an argument for flat war fees here; consider it as you will. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Dirael Papier
Blackdust Citex Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:Dirael Papier wrote: TL;DR At the minimum only CURRENTLY SUBSCRIBED accounts should count towards the defender's member count as far as war costs are concerned.
He confirmed this at the end of QA. The way I remember it is the concern voiced by the audience member was about non-subbed members counting towards war costs, but the presenter kept saying he liked the idea of not counting trial accounts.
From what I understand, it's hard for the presenters to hear some of the questions, so I think the war dec guy just heard the audience member ask about people making trials to boost the cost and didn't hear about unsubbed accounts boosting the cost, if that makes sense.
Basically, I think he confirmed that not counting trial accounts was a good concern and something they'd work on, but I don't think he considered the aspect of ANY unsubbed account boosting the cost. (trial or full account) |
Audrey Thinkerbolt
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sneakybustard wrote:and that would be 4billion 126million to dec goonswarm plus 50 mil ofc with current 8252 members.. In case you missed it: if you want to fight Goonswarm you can simply take your fleet to VFK. You don't have to pribe CONCORD to be able to do that. |
Vherik Askold
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
Audrey Thinkerbolt wrote:Sneakybustard wrote:and that would be 4billion 126million to dec goonswarm plus 50 mil ofc with current 8252 members.. In case you missed it: if you want to fight Goonswarm you can simply take your fleet to VFK. You don't have to pribe CONCORD to be able to do that. You misunderstand. People don't want to fight goonswarm. They want a cheap way to get free kills off the random goonswarm guy that wanders into high-sec for shopping instead of using an alt. |
Spectre80
The Knights Templar GIANTSBANE.
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
indeed its all about ganking not fights. or do you think wardeccing has been anything else ever? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
662
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:29:00 -
[49] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc. That's the great thing about EVE: You don't need a definitive goal that's laid out by game mechanics for you. You fight for your own reasons; I'm sure you can find some. I've always been able to.
I would like to reiterate, I do NOT think that scaling war costs based on the size of the defender in any major way is a good idea. Half a million isk per member, absolutely not. One tenth of that, I could see POSSIBLY working, but I still don't really like it. Again, all the things I wrote about scaling war costs here are still true. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
498
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
Pro-tip: To anyone bitching that decs will be expensive, that complain unfair it might be if CCP does not institute a by-account and not per character, ect ect WHINE WHINE WHINE! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR! I WANNA! I WANNA! LET ME SHOOT THEM!!!! ad nausem -
1. GTFO of highsec 2. Gank 3. Corp infiltration?
Oh, look at that. Still viable ways you can **** over other people or not even deal with the annoying issues of highsec. You don't need to play lol-honorable COD duels at 15 paces, this is EVE and nothing says you can't lose sec status in the process or us an alt spy....unless you are really risk adverse to still hide behind CONCORD protection except in the issue of the one corp you dec or want to /wrist yourself when AFKing a POS |
|
Wai Ish'inre
Intaki Armaments
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
3b to dec TEST, 4b to dec Goons...
What are all the empire griefers pretending to be mercenaries going to do? Even in the height of its 'power' the 0rphanage only sent out 5-7b a week in war decs using the old pricing layout; what are groups like Rebirth, No Kings, Double Tap and all the other idiots that pad their killboards with shuttles, noob ships, and the occasional battlecruiser going to do now?
|
Nomika
The Cuban Connection Baja Panti Mafia
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
what now Imperial Care-Bear Guardians? |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong White-Lotus
472
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:57:00 -
[53] - Quote
wait, so all it does, is let you bring other people into the war, to help you defend. For a price of course.
Whats wrong with that? that is how it works i real life.
if you can't see the epic lolz griefing that can be done with this system, you are a fool. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
412
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:04:00 -
[54] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:The cease fire situation, where after the war the war can not resume between the two for seven days, that should be extended to 14 days. Would also argue, any corp that has had a war end in the past 14 days AND they surrender for over one billion OR had a merc contract for a cost of more than one billion ISK, the cost to war dec that corp is triple in that 14 days. Helps reduce the incentive for ISK pinata. This would be too easily exploited by alt corps.
I suppose so, by paying a billion ISK back and forth. Is that less of a concern than some poor little corp being used as an ISK faucet because they made a bad choice? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
412
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:07:00 -
[55] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc. That's the great thing about EVE: You don't need a definitive goal that's laid out by game mechanics for you. You fight for your own reasons; I'm sure you can find some. I've always been able to.
So make it optional, what's wrong with options? |
Azmodeus Valar
EVE University Ivy League
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:08:00 -
[56] - Quote
My new hobby:
Dec someone with alt corp A
Contact them with Alt corp B offering to come in and help as mercs...for a fee.
(note: I'm saying this is an upside, not a downside to the new rules. I find this idea hilarious...and potentially profitable) |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
412
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:09:00 -
[57] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote: One thing I notice is that war still lacks a definitive goal to a war. Granted that is not always easy to define. Some ideas could be, how much ISK damage inflicted - once a player defined number is reached, the war ends. Later, when planet districts are added, declare a war to claim districts or multiple districts. This could be extended to outposts, POSes at moons, etc.
This sound nice. - attacker set's goal: "war end when we destroyed POS x" (as excample) - defender has to know about to goal !!! Now defender can decide to defend the tower OR to let it as undefended as posible to let the war end quick. But as long as it is posible to start wardecs without any goal ... they have no deeper impact and so are meaningless.
Yep, and goals could be a ruse tool as well "War ends when we get XYZ" ... but instead go attack ABC. |
Prince Kobol
276
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:14:00 -
[58] - Quote
Audrey Thinkerbolt wrote:Sneakybustard wrote:and that would be 4billion 126million to dec goonswarm plus 50 mil ofc with current 8252 members.. In case you missed it: if you want to fight Goonswarm you can simply take your fleet to VFK. You don't have to pribe CONCORD to be able to do that.
Yes and No.
The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec.
With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost.
You might also want to war dec a null sec alliance if you want them using major high sec trade hubs as well.
For me all these changes will do is make it safer for larger alliances which is pants |
Elsa Nietchize
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
I for one am finally reassured by CCP's track-record. While they're great at talk and bullet points, they consistently fail to deliver on every expansion. So no matter how bad this looks, i'm sure it'll only turn out worse.
|
Liam Mirren
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:16:00 -
[60] - Quote
- I'll fully agree to the base cost of 2 mil being silly low - CCP seems to agree that idiotic high cost (due to a fail mechanic atm) can be too high - I can see the logic of making target corp size a factor in cost but there needs to be a ceiling as numbers can become rediculous (just do the math on deccing EVE UNI or goons, see what happens) and you'll just introduce another opt-out - if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.
I'm not sure on the ally thing, an ally can already help you out by simply deccing the aggressors. Also, (sorry if this is already mentioned somewhere) who are the devs working on this? Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
Dear CCP,
You just made mercenaries matter again.
Lots of love,
Khanh'rhh - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:17:00 -
[62] - Quote
Oh, and QQ more, your tears feed me, etc etc. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so
looks good apart from that, definitely contemplating grinding up my characters sec status to join in the high sec wars |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
121
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
I'd suggest capping the wardec fee at something reasonable (maybe 100 mil / week), else everyone will just pile into one giant carebear corp that's too expensive to dec, and when someone does they'll all drop and go to a 2nd corp or back to NPC and nothing will change. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
770
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
Vherik Askold wrote: You misunderstand. People don't want to fight goonswarm. They want a cheap way to get free kills off the random goonswarm guy that wanders into high-sec for shopping instead of using an alt.
Players also want a way to wage economic warfare on the large alliances, forcing them into using 3rd parties to go shopping in Jita / trade hubs. Basically, attempting to disrupt the supply lines (to the degree possible). Is it totally effective? Not really, due to the ease of creating alts, but it does make things slightly more difficult so there's no reason to outlaw it.
Hi-sec wardecs are just an expression of economic warfare. Because in hi-sec, there's really no concept of "territory", no way to deny people from entering your territory. So in the end, it ends up just being about the ISK. Either impacting income (can't mission run / incursion), or by blowing up assets. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
I'm failing to see why large corporations or alliance deserve additional protection because they are large. Removing the ability for people to artificially inflate the cost of declaring war on themselves is good, but it's completely pointless pointless if you're going to add a mechanic that does the same thing automatically. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
Guess we know what the Devs are doing when not writing those inane blogs .. they are reading the forum.
80% or more of that stuff is what we have been bickering about since last summer or so, hope they appreciate that their players are designing the game for them |
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
meh only thing i dont see as balanced is that small corps have to pay more to dec a big one and big ones pay less to dec a small one.
Not very balanced unless free highsec camping is the objective of war now
As others said big corps should pay higher to dec smaller targets. They should have contemplate whether its cheaper to lock thier target down in stations via unbalanced war, or to just buy tornados and gank them |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:27:00 -
[69] - Quote
Azmodeus Valar wrote:My new hobby:
Dec someone with alt corp A
Contact them with Alt corp B offering to come in and help as mercs...for a fee.
(note: I'm saying this is an upside, not a downside to the new rules. I find this idea hilarious...and potentially profitable) This is why we already have a "merc contracts" channel, where you're very, very unlikely to get scammed (it can happen, but scammers get dealt with, and most listed parties have existed for years). Good to know it won't lose its purpose when these changes roll around. |
gfldex
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost.
You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
|
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:28:00 -
[71] - Quote
yess...smaller corp wardeccing a larger one should be virtually free |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
770
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote: - if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.
The issue with the aggressor corp member size making things cheaper if they are smaller is that the aggressor is most likely to be the organization which plays games with members jumping out just before the war is declared (to drive down the dec cost), then those members jump back in when the time is right. Defenders don't know the timing, so any "gaming" of the character count has to be done full-time.
I say this because the aggressor controls the timing of when the wardec is created. Which means it's far easier for them to game the system.
(Also, if there are diminishing returns on higher defender member counts such as the CubeRoot() method, then moving your membership from 100 to 300 is not a 3x cost increase but only a 40-45% increase. So yes, you can drive the cost up by using all of your alt slots, but it's more affordable to the aggressor to still dec.) |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:30:00 -
[73] - Quote
As a casual solo player my only concern about this whole idea is that the corp infrastructure (roles) and permissions with POS operations is so screwy that it would be nice to have something better before this potential 'end of small corps' solution was implemented.
"Forced grouping" is what this appears to be geared towards, which is fine, but seems counter to sandbox ideology. Eh, bring it. We will all adapt, die, or unsub I guess. I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
518
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
I'd still like to see more ACTUAL objectives.
Allow us to close an enemy office in a station as terms of surrender, for example.
Also, I think a 7 day peace period is too short. Make it a 14 days Peace Treaty.
What stops corp hopping to repeat war after surrender?
I.e.
Corp Griefer attacks Corp Carebear
Corp Carebear surrenders for 50M.
Corp Griefer jumps to Corp griefer B
Corp Griefer B war decs Corp Carebear to continue harassment.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
I'm just going to relink my proposal here every once in a while, until it either gathers support or until a better system gets proposed.
The currently-proposed system would absolutely wreck the ability of small-scale corporations to wage war against larger ones. If this gets addressed, then the overall package seems quite desirable. |
Tirias Keshtar
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
Perhaps the wardec cost should be based on the size of both the attacker and the defender, rather than just the size of the defender.
Also, +1 for basing it off of number of members active within the last week rather than total corporation size, possibly excluding trials.
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Glorious Revolution The 99 Percent
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:39:00 -
[77] - Quote
"Every corp and alliance will have a publicly available war history. All active and concluded wars"
That should honestly be optional. Else you'll see some corps with terrible losses being deced all the time. |
Cipher Jones
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:43:00 -
[78] - Quote
@CCP;
Your proposal will cost you thousands of accounts, I hope you are prepared for that. cipher jones, alone and unloved after his campaign against the evil goonies, resorts to stealing their techniques to become loved |
Prince Kobol
276
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:The problem arises if (and when) you have null sec alliances that also have a number of corps based in high sec. With the proposed war dec costs being talked about those corps who are based in high sec will be virtually safe due to the cost. You imply that you can't make a lot of ISK out of ganking big 0.0 alliances in empire. I don't agree on that notion.
The point I was trying to make is that you should not have to resort to ganking big alliances.
It is also not just about stopping freighters, its also about stopping their members from being able to come into high sec for any reason risk free.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:- I'll fully agree to the base cost of 2 mil being silly low - CCP seems to agree that idiotic high cost (due to a fail mechanic atm) can be too high - I can see the logic of making target corp size a factor in cost but there needs to be a ceiling as numbers can become rediculous (just do the math on deccing EVE UNI or goons, see what happens) and you'll just introduce another opt-out - if you make target corp size an increasing factor, you can also make aggressor corp size one: if you have less than 50, 20 or 5 members (numbers are ofcourse negotiable) that could give 3 stages of lowering cost, deccing a corp while you have 50 or more members should be more expensive than when you only have 3.
I'm not sure on the ally thing, an ally can already help you out by simply deccing the aggressors. Also, (sorry if this is already mentioned somewhere) who are the devs working on this?
One or two allies can help. It quickly becomes financially infeasible. With Inferno it can become so cheap that you have a dozen of mercenaries helping out. And those can help out dozens of corps at once. This is absolutely not possible right now. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:02:00 -
[81] - Quote
These mechanics sound okay.
I'm fine with costs dependent on size of defender. Based on costs stated, deccing the Uni would cost 750M ISK (at current corp size.) I bet they start allowing alts into the corp to balloon the size. :)
Surrender mechanics sound okay. One side offers surrender, the other side has to accept. ISK can be involved and the accepting side gets the ISK.
They used an idea I wrote about a month ago (tho it could have very well been an idea on the table for much longer), the use of mercenaries by the defender. Defender can only bring in one defender/mercenary group.
They did not go with the consensual route. Wardecs can still be non-consensual between parties, so that's very good news. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:03:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers on alts they don't really play.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:07:00 -
[83] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
I'd still like to see more ACTUAL objectives.
Allow us to close an enemy office in a station as terms of surrender, for example.
Also, I think a 7 day peace period is too short. Make it a 14 days Peace Treaty.
What stops corp hopping to repeat war after surrender?
I.e.
Corp Griefer attacks Corp Carebear
Corp Carebear surrenders for 50M.
Corp Griefer jumps to Corp griefer B
Corp Griefer B war decs Corp Carebear to continue harassment.
I think it will be extremely foolish for any corp to surrender under these proposed mechanics, as their history will show that they surrendered, and that will immediately make them a nice, juicy target from that point on.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:10:00 -
[84] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:I think it will be extremely foolish for any corp to surrender under these proposed mechanics, as their history will show that they surrendered, and that will immediately make them a nice, juicy target from that point on. Any corp will quickly realize when they're being Surrender Trolled.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Liam Mirren
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:21:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:One or two allies can help. It quickly becomes financially infeasible. With Inferno it can become so cheap that you have a dozen of mercenaries helping out. And those can help out dozens of corps at once. This is absolutely not possible right now.
Yes but that's too easy and too much because that effectively means wardecs won't happen.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap.
1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil.
PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:34:00 -
[87] - Quote
this cost stuff is going to make PRVTRs rather expensive, if they keep the current pricing structure for alliance vs alliance wars that would be good.
Dont know about the implementation of 'Structured wars' if it means that we cannot wardec people for 1 week and let it run out then it makes the PRVTR model rather expensive. Privateer Alliance, rebuilding a not so safe High Sec.-á
Want to assist in this endevor? (contract wars, corp/pilot recrutment) Contact one of our directors. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
270
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap. 1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil. PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap. 1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil. PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. You do realize that cost is the only effective defense a target corp industry corp has?
I know many of you can't belive it, but there are actual many EvE players who enjoy mining+trading+manufacturing. And these guys don't just want to be target-dummys for you pewpew guys!
So if CCP refuses to give them a legit tool EXCEPT throwing ISK either to the attacker or random merc corp ... the price to grif them must be at a level where not every wannabe 2 youmad brother corp can wardec 1 bazillion indu corps at once.
If you wardec you should know what you do. If you know what you do 1 billion is nothing for you. If you don't know what you do .. you shouldn't wardec at all.
And no, it's no option to tell them "wast your SP into stuff you don't want to do" <- was SP == was real time == wast real money in EvE !!! Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
394
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:48:00 -
[90] - Quote
People should defend themselves by defending themselves. |
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:51:00 -
[91] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:As a casual solo player my only concern about this whole idea is that the corp infrastructure (roles) and permissions with POS operations is so screwy that it would be nice to have something better before this potential 'end of small corps' solution was implemented.
"Forced grouping" is what this appears to be geared towards, which is fine, but seems counter to sandbox ideology. Eh, bring it. We will all adapt, die, or unsub I guess. I think you'll find that most small corps (1~10) that pretty much mind their own business aren't going to be threatened much by this, especially if you actually play the game. If someone wardecced me, for instance, I'd just move out to Syndicate/Outer Ring for a week and derp around. Tiny corps actually have a lot more options for mobility and denying the "deccer" their fun, and they're not going to be seen as juicy targets. I'm ******* terrible at EVE.
"Fun fact: carebears are not necessary for the game to function." --áTippia |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:05:00 -
[92] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:People should defend themselves by defending themselves. Would you spent millions of SP into indu-skill just becouse some random nobody tells you to do ?
No you wouldn't as you would consider the time you invest into something you don't like to do as WASTED! Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Vince Snetterton
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:08:00 -
[93] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:MadMuppet wrote:As a casual solo player my only concern about this whole idea is that the corp infrastructure (roles) and permissions with POS operations is so screwy that it would be nice to have something better before this potential 'end of small corps' solution was implemented.
"Forced grouping" is what this appears to be geared towards, which is fine, but seems counter to sandbox ideology. Eh, bring it. We will all adapt, die, or unsub I guess. I think you'll find that most small corps (1~10) that pretty much mind their own business aren't going to be threatened much by this, especially if you actually play the game. If someone wardecced me, for instance, I'd just move out to Syndicate/Outer Ring for a week and derp around. Tiny corps actually have a lot more options for mobility and denying the "deccer" their fun, and they're not going to be seen as juicy targets.
Sure, and all the small indy corps that have a POS or 2 up, they will have no problem shutting down operations for a week or 2? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
270
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:15:00 -
[94] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:You do realize that cost is the only effective defense a target corp industry corp has?
I know many of you can't belive it, but there are actual many EvE players who enjoy mining+trading+manufacturing. And these guys don't just want to be target-dummys for you pewpew guys!
What about the times a rival industrial corporation wants to eliminate its competition by hiring muscle to put the squeeze on their operations?
What about the times an aggrieved player wants to hire some mercenaries to shut down a griefer's activity?
What about the times when some corporation undergoes an internal theft, and wants to exact revenge on the thief?
See, the assumption you're working on is that every single war that happens is purely a grief war. Well, you know what they say about assumptions... |
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:18:00 -
[95] - Quote
Vince Snetterton wrote:Sure, and all the small indy corps that have a POS or 2 up, they will have no problem shutting down operations for a week or 2? Well, that's your own problem to figure out, now isn't it? I have an indy alt in a friend's corp and I imagine we'd be all for getting a bit of action defending our small research tower, even if it got destroyed. Besides, most pr0 deccers would probably rather kill a faction tower, so I'm not really worried about our space assets.
Don't make yourself a target unless you're able to defend yourself. I'm ******* terrible at EVE.
"Fun fact: carebears are not necessary for the game to function." --áTippia |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
421
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:54:00 -
[96] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tetragammatron Prime wrote:wardec fee should be capped at 1bil or so Agreed. Otherwise some corps will balloon numbers with alts they don't really play. 1 bil is far to low as top-cap. 1 bil as minimum might be ok caped at 100 bil. PS: and no I'm not trolling. Even I can make 1 bil within 1 week SOLO with just one acc and nearly no playtime. So any dedicated wardec corp should be able to earn that much. You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account.
Flipping your sentences:
You do realize how badly this will destroy the industrial industry right?
Industry's ammo is money, you are better to be prepared to fight against their defense.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Valkyria Caeli
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
These sound like great changes for corps that can and are willing to fight back. Much better system in principle but doesn't do much for small corps wanting to just stay out of the gunfire.
I always though that wars should be about territory. In the case of Hisec it seems like that should be PI, Moon bases, POSs and perhaps anything that is anchored. Basically, if you don't want to be dec'd don't put down roots anywhere. The baby corps would be protected but they would also be limited on what they can get into. Also, any corp that doesn't have anything to fight for wouldn't be able to declare war. You can't get into the game if you don't pay for chips. On the other hand. A corp, or even an individual that sets up PI or something else should be able to be pushed out of the system by a competitor that declares war. Destroying your opponent's facilities also give the war clear goal. This way you don't avoid wars by hiding in NPC corps, rather you could only avoid war but limiting what you build. It would make people think twice before anchoring a GSC. |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:01:00 -
[98] - Quote
It's not worth the time to try to build anything in this game, meaning corp, infrastructure, or whatever. I think NPC corp will be the solution for me if I stay in the game at all. I'm sick of taking grief from other players and dealing with war decs I don't want. I've tried to help build a newbie corp with my main for over two years and every war dec brings a fresh stupid loss from the new players who just don't get Eve, and who rightly don't just want to dock up for a week during a war dec when they're paying to play a game. We've had 40-50 wars while I've been playing and we've done badly at nearly all of them because we have tried to take in new players to make corp chat fun and to help them learn the game that we were (once) passionate about. Our war record will always identify us as a target.
There's obviously no room for people like me in this game and maybe it's time I faced it. I get enough consequences from my life, I don't need them from a game that's supposed to be fun.
These new war dec rules just substitute one bad set of war dec rules for another. The system will just grief our corp in a different way.
The ally system is about the only bright spot. But it will be used to scam members, I expect, and will hurt as much as it helps.
A week for a war is far too long. The cost is not nearly high enough to be a deterrent. The
Oh, why bother. I don't even think I care any more.
|
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
184
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:20:00 -
[99] - Quote
I just woke up to find both that Darius is our CSM representative again and that this news has dropped.
I have not pawed through the guts of this very seriously yet, but at first look it appears to be solid. I mean, obviously that assumes that dec scraping and corp-hopping goes away along with it. Unless I missed that part. |
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:25:00 -
[100] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:Oh, why bother. I don't even think I care any more. Yeah, no one else does either. You're obviously too terrible at this game to be teaching newbies how to make their way, please just leave the game. I'm ******* terrible at EVE.
"Fun fact: carebears are not necessary for the game to function." --áTippia |
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
190
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:26:00 -
[101] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Quote:Wars can no longer be retracted by the aggressor when their want. Therefore more committing...
Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp. Hmm. This seems contradictory. Each war runs in week cycles. You pay each week to extend it. But you can't drop the war during a cycle as the aggressor. I.e. small corp declares war on what looks like a juicy target. They are in it for a week. Within a day of it starting, the declaring corp is suffering a lot of losses because of the allies. They want to drop the war because it is limiting their ability to do anything else, but can't. They have to wait out the full week. Thanks. Clears things up a bit.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:32:00 -
[102] - Quote
Ah yeah baby. I feel for the Dec Shield corps, your ass is done. Believe it. |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:33:00 -
[103] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:But you can't drop the war during a cycle as the aggressor. Are you sure? I read it that either side can offer a surrender, but the other side has to accept. If the aggressor surrenders, and the defender accepts, then the war is over.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:33:00 -
[104] - Quote
NOW RECRUITING TRIAL ACCOUNT MEMBERS! MAKE US SAFE IN HISEC! |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:... every war dec brings a fresh stupid loss from the new players who just don't get Eve ... Maybe you should have done a better job educating them on what EVE is about ... so system shock didn't set in when they realized EVE wasn't Elves in Space.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
DarthNefarius
Ssssansha'S Deathhead Einsatzgruppen
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:59:00 -
[106] - Quote
No changes to closed corps & 1 man corps war decking to grief. Closed corps war decks are continueing? Corps can't drop but pilots still can without the war deck following them so expect to see alot of corps opening & closing which miners will use to escape wardecks and alot of old mining corps will be no more.
NOW RECRUITING TRIAL ACCOUNT MEMBERS! MAKE US SAFE IN HISEC! |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
193
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:01:00 -
[107] - Quote
New Wardec ideas show promise, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
Wardec fees should be based on the size of the attacker not the defender, or flat fees that are not prohibitively expensive should be used.
NPC corps also need to be addressed, I think after a character reaches 3 months of age NPC corp tax should go up to 51%. Only exception being FW militias which should remain the same. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
417
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:15:00 -
[108] - Quote
Attacker/defender difference in size should be more the metric than just defender size. Similar sized corps would cost less, more dissimilar would cost more, in addition to number of wars. |
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:18:00 -
[109] - Quote
Xorv wrote:
NPC corps also need to be addressed, I think after a character reaches 3 months of age NPC corp tax should go up to 51%. Only exception being FW militias which should remain the same.
Until they do something to lock players in to decced corps and turn them in to prisons there is little point in raising the NPC taxes higher. There will just be a group of free to jump corps (the new dec shield) or players will just burn another 1.5 million isk to make a new one, and his pursuers need to burn 20.5 million isk to give chase. Unless there is a POS invovled it doesn't really matter. I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
On balance I like the way theyre headed, not perfect perhaps but a damn sight better than the currently useless system.
Time to buy some ammo.
C.
|
|
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:You do realize that cost is the only effective defense a target corp industry corp has?
I know many of you can't belive it, but there are actual many EvE players who enjoy mining+trading+manufacturing. And these guys don't just want to be target-dummys for you pewpew guys! What about the times a rival industrial corporation wants to eliminate its competition by hiring muscle to put the squeeze on their operations? What about the times an aggrieved player wants to hire some mercenaries to shut down a griefer's activity? What about the times when some corporation undergoes an internal theft, and wants to exact revenge on the thief? See, the assumption you're working on is that every single war that happens is purely a grief war. Well, you know what they say about assumptions...
And where is the mechanic to control this stuff?
- Merc corp uses alts to wardec random indu corp. - Indu corp search for some strong arms to protect them - the Mercs who used their alts to wardec this indu corp show up and defend the indus against their own alts ...
And yes, I see every singel wardec as a grif-dec. It's up to you, to show me a singel wardec in the past 7 years which was no grif-dec. Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:But you can't drop the war during a cycle as the aggressor. Are you sure? I read it that either side can offer a surrender, but the other side has to accept. If the aggressor surrenders, and the defender accepts, then the war is over.
I'm not sure on that actually. I suspect surrenders would accept it. That would make sense, but the aggressor can't just drop the war. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5762
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:25:00 -
[113] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Ah yeah baby. I feel for the Dec Shield corps, your ass is done. Believe it. As the owner of one such alliance, I can only say: best news ever. The business opportunitites this opens up (especially if they take some of the roundtable suggestionsto heart) are enormous.
Also, indy corps will be immensely better equipped to defend themselves after this.
There are a few obvious exploits (which may just be due to poor wording on the devs' part) that need to be ironed out, but aside from thatGǪ
Oh, and it seems fairly likely that corp-hopping will get a mighty schwack in some different ways. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
foxnod
BOAE INC GIANTSBANE.
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:37:00 -
[114] - Quote
So far sounds good. The costs are on the prohibitive side and they still need to do something about corp hoppers. Nice to see CCP not pandering to the worthless carebears for a change. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
903
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:47:00 -
[115] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Wow this war dec stuff seems like its going to kill small starting up corps completely. Now there's no way out of wars, no downside for aggressors but a massive downside for defenders. It's basically going to be, disband your corp or log off.
Strange feeling about this, NPC corps are about to see their demographics explode?
There are tons of tears incoming, nice was just about to cook some stuff.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:50:00 -
[116] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:And yes, I see every singel wardec as a grif-dec. It's up to you, to show me a singel wardec in the past 7 years which was no grif-dec. Go back to Star Trek Online, please.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:53:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Wow this war dec stuff seems like its going to kill small starting up corps completely. Small starter corps have been doing fine the past eight years. These changes actually make things a tad easier for them.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2108
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:54:00 -
[118] - Quote
Was there anything about being able to push a button and declare war on ALL OF EVE? This is important because of some plans we have for Jita coming soon. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:55:00 -
[119] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Strange feeling about this, NPC corps are about to see their demographics explode? Because the game didn't exist before this moment in time. The new wardec mechanics are far superior to what existed before (during which highsec continued to boom [no pun intended]). This new system gives better options and protection to everyone. If highsec was okay beforehand, it will continue to be okay after this new systems is released.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
I am lucky I never leave the station where I trade so I will be immune from all of this.
I can imagine those new low SP guys soon forced to be racketed or be melted just because they poke their head out of a station in a game they want to explore. Imagine the epicness, they see all those videos where they are oh so immortal, oh so powerful then they join a random corp and get told to stay docked for a week.
It'd be fast quit time for something less ******** and more fun, like GW2.
It's just basic 101 of market convenience: if playing = having to deal with RR 10000 docking gamers and similar then EvE is probably not the game for a bunch of current players any more.
Though internet anonymous guys will certainly disagree with these statements.
However it goes I'll be fine. I'll sell the stuff they use and make money.
If EvE will shrink back to 30k hi sec though guys subs I'll have less competition and make easier money.
I suppose CCP did not want those carebears subs anyway. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh so powerful then they join a random corp and get told to stay docked for a week. The only corp that forces their membership to dock while wardecced is the University. Every other corp, big and small, they learn to adapt, they learn to play the game. The University doesn't teach people how to play the game, they farm votes for Kelduum. :) The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1145
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:04:00 -
[122] - Quote
Wow, the pricing structure needs work I think. I'd be more in favor of some kind of logarithmic function surrounding member counts.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:07:00 -
[123] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh so powerful then they join a random corp and get told to stay docked for a week. The only corp that forces their membership to dock while wardecced is the University. Every other corp, big and small, they learn to adapt, they learn to play the game. The University doesn't teach people how to play the game, they farm votes for Kelduum. :)
This is only true for corps with a PvP "wing".
Those without it do what EvE Uni does, as it's the only way to make wardeccers get bored.
Attacking back is exactly what they are after. Undocking is as smart as paying ransoms: they'll just get back for more later. Paying mercs also will flag them to be wardecced later by the same mercs alts because they - duh - show they are ready to pay mercs and this is good income. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:12:00 -
[124] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Those without it do what EvE Uni does, as it's the only way to make wardeccers get bored. Or you can create insta-undocks and learn how to use d-scan and local. You can still function as an industrialist under a wardec, and not go looking for fights. Run some clones out to the assends of highsec and jump between them every 24hrs, and do your stuff. Don't keep operating in your usual haunts.
ADAPT.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:14:00 -
[125] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:With a "cat vs mice" mechanism it'd be more fun. Pinning the targets with no escape is just going to work so much before they suddenly recall they are paying for getting unilateral abuse. During the last five years, under the old abusive wardec system, why did they continue to keep paying? Things just got a lot better for everyone.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
194
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:15:00 -
[126] - Quote
i am interested in seeing how the merc marketplace integrates with the new dueling system |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:16:00 -
[127] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Those without it do what EvE Uni does, as it's the only way to make wardeccers get bored. Or you can create insta-undocks and learn how to use d-scan and local. You can still function as an industrialist under a wardec, and not go looking for fights. Run some clones out to the assends of highsec and jump between them every 24hrs, and do your stuff. Don't keep operating in your usual haunts. ADAPT.
I have already adapted. I know and have JCs and whatever but you like many others always think about YOU and think that anybody else talking is talking about THEM.
I am not in any scheme, I am putting myself in some 1 month old player shoes, something very uncommon both in RL and in EvE.
Whatever, WHATEVER you say here, they won't care about it, they will just quit and talk crap about EvE.
Like miners now prefer to stop mining than getting a 40% loss in yeld overtanking their wet toilet paper ships (useless anyway, just add 1 more tier 3 alpha ship) a portion of new players won't care to stay in a game in the hands of rackets and docking gamers.
The keyword is "can't be arsed". They could deal with it or adapt but it's not 2003 any more. Current players are too spoiled by alternatives, I really want to see how it will get true the Fanfest statement to make EvE the largest MMO universe by only retaining the hard mode players (0.001% of the total players pool). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Resivan
Driftglass Development
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:22:00 -
[128] - Quote
A couple of weeks ago some two man corp threatened to war dec my three man corp if I didn't pay them off. I politely told them that
- I wasn't afraid my alts would desert the corp,
- it would be a nuisance to take down my POS, but I had the standings to set it up again later,
- I could do everything I needed to keep my business running besides moving stuff from a cloaked covops anywhere in the relevant region,
- courier contracts aren't that expensive, and
- I'd been looking for an excuse to try Star Trek Online anyway.
Never heard anything more from them. The proposed war dec changes won't have any real impact on me.
That said, the proposal is a lazy one, that does nothing to solve the problems it's supposed to. Large corps will make it unprofitable to dec them by inflating their numbers instead of setting up dec shields. Denied a way to shed the war dec, small corps that aren't interested in fighting will splinter or the members will play something else for a week. War decs will, as they are now, only be useful for griefing or mutual combat.
I won't pretend that I have a complete solution, but I'll throw out two suggestions:
Make the cost vary with the difference in size between the two corps, regardless of which is the larger. Include a cap or diminishing returns.
Allow the defending corp to take over paying for the war if the attacker declines to. Perhaps allow the defender's allies to opt out and allow the erstwhile attacker to recruit allies, but don't let the attacker have the exclusive right to terminate the war. |
Sol Tertia
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:26:00 -
[129] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:The only corp that forces their membership to dock while wardecced is the University. Must be some other university you're talking about, E-Uni WSOP doesn't say that. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:27:00 -
[130] - Quote
Resivan wrote:A couple of weeks ago some two man corp threatened to war dec my three man corp if I didn't pay them off. I politely told them that
- I wasn't afraid my alts would desert the corp,
- it would be a nuisance to take down my POS, but I had the standings to set it up again later,
- I could do everything I needed to keep my business running besides moving stuff from a cloaked covops anywhere in the relevant region,
- courier contracts aren't that expensive, and
- I'd been looking for an excuse to try Star Trek Online anyway.
Never heard anything more from them. The proposed war dec changes won't have any real impact on me. That said, the proposal is a lazy one, that does nothing to solve the problems it's supposed to. Large corps will make it unprofitable to dec them by inflating their numbers instead of setting up dec shields. Denied a way to shed the war dec, small corps that aren't interested in fighting will splinter or the members will play something else for a week. War decs will, as they are now, only be useful for griefing or mutual combat.
Yeah what I am failing to say is that the CBA and "just won't do it" factor are important. You can put every and all hugest restrictions on the attacked corps, you can force their players to never be able to leave those corps, you can force biomass them if they don't fight back. EVERYTHING.
And in the end, if they really just don't want to do that, they won't.
As of now they just join some Dec Shield, if you take them off any escape way they will just bring their $15 somewhere else.
It's not RL, you cannot make someone else's life a sh!t in a paid game, they will just opt out. And given the endless alternatives, the number of people less inclined to accept being shat in their face is decreasing by the day. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:32:00 -
[131] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If EvE will shrink back to 30k hi sec though guys subs I'll have less competition and make easier money.
I suppose CCP did not want those carebears subs anyway.
Sorry I can't hear you over the 200,000 new subscribers that Incarna brought. Oh wait, I mean the droves of people who left because of Incarna. And subscriptions skyrocketed back up the instant CCP announced a war themed expansion and more ships in space. So I guess that proves the exact opposite of what you are saying.
You are just full of hot air that doesn't represent the playerbase of EVE at all. Maybe if you undocked or *gasp* interacted with other people you'd learn about what other players want. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
642
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:45:00 -
[132] - Quote
Gummy Plaude wrote:
War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.
Yep! This is my problem here. To declare war, you should need to declare an objective. Either "that installation on that planet neets to go" or "your POCOs need to be destroyed" or "we want that moon your HS POS is anchored at because the view is pretty" or "this ice field belongs to us, your lazors can't lock our ice anymore" or something. Create objectives, reduce griefing for griefing's sake. |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:50:00 -
[133] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Gummy Plaude wrote:
War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.
Yep! This is my problem here. To declare war, you should need to declare an objective. Either "that installation on that planet neets to go" or "your POCOs need to be destroyed" or "we want that moon your HS POS is anchored at because the view is pretty" or "this ice field belongs to us, your lazors can't lock our ice anymore" or something. Create objectives, reduce griefing for griefing's sake. What if my objective is to just make your life miserable, because I don't like you very much? Seems like a valid objective to me. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it invalid.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
642
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:05:00 -
[134] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:What if my objective is to just make your life miserable, because I don't like you very much? Seems like a valid objective to me. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it invalid.
Well, I look at things from the perspective of the game world. I'm against catering game mechanics to deal with real-life personality conflicts. I rather see wars fought because someone wants to monopolize planets instead of "SUCK DEEZ NUTZ MUTHAFUCKA!!!11" Of course, you could still grief with objectives but at least then it makes more sense within the game setting. |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:07:00 -
[135] - Quote
Still looks broken to me. Its too complicated for new players. Just remove war dec mechanism. Theres more than enough ganking in eve. They don't want to let it go but they should.
i wonder how the game would balance territorialy if you just had a war option where you could fight everbody else that wanted to fight. Make your sides up as you go with standigs. All these agression and war mechanics seem anal to me. do this if this blah blah blah, You want to fight, just fight, total war, no place to hide ya know? We got channels mailing lists all kinfd of voice and forum coms. We could obsolete the whole corp infrastructure. Its as borked as the war dec from any point of view I have seen. |
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate
238
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:23:00 -
[136] - Quote
I for one would hope that I will be able to join like minded players to form merc corps with plans to offer protection services to corps for a moderate price. With safeties in place that requires we honour our contracts.
Time the players took matters into their own hands.
CCP will not save you. |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:29:00 -
[137] - Quote
Benilopax wrote:With safeties in place that requires we honour our contracts. That's called Building a Reputation. The game doesn't need artificial barriers/enforcement.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
None ofthe Above
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:40:00 -
[138] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Wow this war dec stuff seems like its going to kill small starting up corps completely. Small starter corps have been doing fine the past eight years. These changes actually make things a tad easier for them.
In what way?
They look more like chum in the waters for sharks to me. These changes protect larger corps and change the economics to encourage wardec'ing smaller corps.
Am genuinely curious as to what you see as making things a "tad easier" for small corps.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:40:00 -
[139] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If EvE will shrink back to 30k hi sec though guys subs I'll have less competition and make easier money.
I suppose CCP did not want those carebears subs anyway. Sorry I can't hear you over the 200,000 new subscribers that Incarna brought. Oh wait, I mean the droves of people who left because of Incarna. And subscriptions skyrocketed back up the instant CCP announced a war themed expansion and more ships in space. So I guess that proves the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are just full of hot air that doesn't represent the playerbase of EVE at all. Maybe if you undocked or *gasp* interacted with other people you'd learn about what other players want.
Too bad Incarna did not tank because it was not what player wanted but because it sucked and fell so short with its one grand room where you can just fap and that's it.
Also, subs skyrocketed the instant CCP announced their refocus on SPACESHIPS not just on war. In fact guess how much did they talk about 0.0 or FW in this Fanfest? Yes that little.
Finally, I interact in one day with more people you interact in one month so keep your ASSumptions for yourself. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
LuckyQuarter
Lucky Galactic Expeditions
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:57:00 -
[140] - Quote
war dec fees should be based on size of attacking corp only with attacking corp not allowed any allies, and defending corps limited to a max of 2 allied corps. Wars should automatically end after 90 days, no renewals, no early terminations, no surrenders/etc. Gain should be limited to the loot from wrecked ships plus any direct payments made between corps. After war, minimum 3 months before defending corp can be wardec'd again. Attacking corps can only initiate one war/month, and fees double for 2nd or 3rd active war.
One Time War Fee: Attacking corp <= 5 members: $250M Attacking corp <= 25 members: $1B Attacking corp >= 25 members: $4B
Initiating a war should also result in a -1 standing drop with whichever faction has the highest relations with the defending corp. -1 to security rating too.
The above would allow serious real wars to occur in highsec, and would reduce the incentive for defending corps to grow big, and makes the initiating corp pay something closer to the real cost of reduced profits/operations/etc that they are forcing the defending corps to incur. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:58:00 -
[141] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Still looks broken to me. Its too complicated for new players. Just remove war dec mechanism. Theres more than enough ganking in eve. They don't want to let it go but they should.
i wonder how the game would balance territorialy if you just had a war option where you could fight everbody else that wanted to fight. Make your sides up as you go with standigs. All these agression and war mechanics seem anal to me. do this if this blah blah blah, You want to fight, just fight, total war, no place to hide ya know? We got channels mailing lists all kinfd of voice and forum coms. We could obsolete the whole corp infrastructure. Its as borked as the war dec from any point of view I have seen.
Exactly.
I have yet to play another PvP game where someone should read a 1000 pages volume just to grasp at the whole list of timers, exceptions, hidden defaults, hidden "if you do this then timer will change in this other timer" and so on.
Those who want to PvP just set some "I want to PvP" flag on or hit somebody and pronto you have the PvP till one of the two dies.
Same for wardecs. RvB is so damn straight, all those who feel the urge to melt faces join it and are done with it.
But no, in EvE we love those Byzantine and baroque castles of rulesets, we love to enforce Malcanis Law and we love to stack the most possible odds... on who is already the eldest and the strongest.
Someone has to have the balls to say this is RE TAR DED.
If they declare how by 2013 EvE Universe will be the largest in the MMO industry they kind of have to realize why they are a super niche game.
Because EvE is hard? LOL, a ****** can play more skillful PvP in GW and soon GW2 (a reason why I pew pew in other MMOs while in EvE I just trade, plus I don't have 2 hours to hop around trying to find the 1 fight without falcon + cyno + RR). EvE is large, it's not hard. It's documentation (was) fragmented but putting together a puzzle is not hard.
EvE is just heavily braked because it can't go beyond the "I will do this to sh!t in your face because that makes me feel good" 13 old mentality. Since just a minority of the humanity think so low of themselves to accept this behavior done on them, they won't pay to meet this kind of "persons" whose only place is in some enforced douchebaggery deintoxication center. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:18:00 -
[142] - Quote
As long as the corp-hopping is resolved for all war-participants, this sounds rather positive.
Let me give a concrete example, story time! I was in a corp with my main that had taken on quite a few new players, but since we were still about 100 people all in all we got a wardec from a corp with just 4 players. As about 80% of our players were less than or around a month old, we told them to stay docked for now and taught them the basics (including aggression mechanics) with some practice-fights against those with a bit more time (and pvp-fights) under their belt (at times when no WTs were online). All in all we thought it might make for a nice experience and a bit of fun, we could just put them in frigs or cruisers and have a bit of pewpew, even if we would still likely lose: we might just get a kill or 2 with pure numbers Clearly the WTs were not interested in such a fight. We tracked down one of them (who got away) and decided to just wait for him to come back out of the dock. After quite a while he did finally come out, and he brought about 10 more people who had just (re-)joined the corp. We of course just got out of there (we were also only 10 people or so all-in-all) as a couple of frigs and cruisers won't kill command ships, T3 and the like in even numbers. We even knew this was a possibility (having done a bit of homework on the WTs before and seeing corp histories on current and ex-members), but we hoped they'd commit at least to a fight against a couple of noobs (even with those numbers their chances of winning were still just fine).
My point about all that is this: CCP has stated they want people who wardec to COMMIT to the whole thing. What is the point of a war if the aggressing corp is basically just a shell where people join if they feel like fighting and leave if they want to go shopping to jita or whatever? At the very least the aggressing corp needs to incur join/leave timers of 1-3 days or something, possibly the defenders as well though to even things out. Also there currently isn't any mechanic that can be used to see these things coming (even if the possibility has come to mind). I can't "Show Info" on the corp every few seconds to see if the member count has changed, that just isn't practical. To my knowledge there is no way to manually refresh a "Show Info" window's information, and it would still be rather impractical if there was.
I'm also unclear as to what they wanted to accomplish, but I doubt they managed to make the war fee of a measly 2 mil back in loot. I also doubt they had much fun in that 1-2 minute fight. But whatever the motives I really hope this mechanic should clearly be improved. I hope to considered cases like this when designing the new system (or you do now)! |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:19:00 -
[143] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What if my objective is to just make your life miserable, because I don't like you very much? Seems like a valid objective to me. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it invalid.
Well, I look at things from the perspective of the game world. I'm against catering game mechanics to deal with real-life personality conflicts. I rather see wars fought because someone wants to monopolize planets instead of "SUCK DEEZ NUTZ MUTHAFUCKA!!!11" Of course, you could still grief with objectives but at least then it makes more sense within the game setting.
I liked this post for the "deez comment". It made me laugh. I fall on the side of grief for griefs sake so our politics differ. Your avatar however, is sexy. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:42:00 -
[144] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote: Why redesign?
- Inferno was war themed, therefore we wanted to look at it.
- Big enough problem to dedicate a team to.
- Examined and war system was underutilized. lacks clear concept. Used for mutual fights or griefing
- Decided to give wars more structure. Make them harder to get out of.
- Does this fit all the game play styles?
- Explored several designs on how to fit more aggressive/hardcore war system
- Kept it simple in the end: Every player corp needs to accept that they can be war decc'd regardless of play style.
- The only way to avoid war decs is to stay in an NPC corp. Need to keep an eye on this.
- Players will have more options when conducting war. More ways to get involved. More ways to counter
- Declaring also has higher changes of backfiring, keeping them in check. Declaring war is more of a commitment.
- Wanted to add more clarity want to expand system to be become interesting outside of hi sec.
- To do this, wars need to provide solid structure and provide more information
Goals
- Tighten so it becomes clear how start/proceed/end
- Make clear how the war is progressing for strategic and status
- Make fighting a war a viable career path for merc corps.
Summary so far.
- Wars are harder to get out of
- wars have better structure
- Info about status is improved
- More options for corps at war
- Career path for Merc Corps.
All still work in progress. Slated for inferno release. Stuff is subject to change.
- Removes war shielding: Remove number of wars defender is in from the war cost forumal. Number of wars the aggressor is in is still a modifier. *applause here*
- War shedding (phony alliance) Corps leaving an Alliance continue all wars the alliance has as a new independent war. *applause here*
- If we find further ways to escape, they will be plugged. Policy is to make wars more impactful, therefore you can't easily escape them
- Base prices is now 20mill, rather than 2. Improves isk sink and makes it more of a consideration
- Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
- CEO/Director makes decision. No more voting *applause*
- Wars can no longer be retracted by the aggressor when their want. Therefore more committing.
- Defender can only declare war mutual in 24 hours before war starts. Will remain mutual. Undecided on this one yet.
- Wars will last for a minimal of a week unless one side surrenders.
- Before week is up, aggressor chooses to extend. You pay the cost to extend it. Cost can change from week to week, based on size of target corp.
- Either side can offer a surrender, but can only have one offer at a time. Offer can include ISK. Other side has 24hours to respond or make a counter offer.
- If surrender is concluded, enforced peace period of a week starts between corps. You cannot war dec each other for 7 days
War Report
- All losses inflicted by each side are tracked in a war report
- Details include links killmails, ship classes, timelines for major battles. Losses in ISK/ships.
- Reports is available to all war participants
- Everything can now have value calculated for it. (e.g. titans)
- Killmails have had face lift, more graphics and more data. Shouldn't affect API, but will assist if it does.
- In game killmail looks like a killboard page.
War history
- Every corp and alliance will have a publicly available war history. All active and concluded wars
- Shows losses inflicted on both sides in the war and allies involved. Details not nailed down yet.
- Rank lists based on win/loss ration isk values etc. Probably not in Inferno, but planned
- Character war history, show if the character deserts corps! Probably not in Inferno, but planned.
War Options
- Defender corp can call an ally to their aid. This can be another corp or alliance. An aggressor can never call an ally. Joins after 24hours of accepting
- There restrictions to how many allies a corp can have *applause*
- Ally joins the defender on the report and stays till war ends.
- Ally contract can involve isk. Paid up front and does not recur every week.
Mercenary Marketplace
- Working title not in game name.
- Get to it through War ui or contract ui
- CEO/Director can create new type of contract. Tentatively called Ally Negotiation. More like an application of willing to help, or notice of needing help.
- Negotiation can occur over contract. Accept, Decline, Counter-offer
- Several entities can negotiate, but only one offer can be accepted.
- Considering Treaty systems. Non-aggression pacts etc
- Other things in the mix, but not being released yet as under heavy debate.
Questions:
- Current cost: 20mill + 500,000 per member in target corp.
- Review the rating of allys/contracts. Not in inferno, but being considered.
- Any plans to consider logi in war reports. No: but want to add in some form later. Killmails only show damage inflict. Want to show other ways participating. Not in inferno, hopefully later
- Question about only using subscribed accounts in inflating costs. Agreed this was a good suggestion and looking at it.
v. nice. Save the Miners! |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:08:00 -
[145] - Quote
So how much do you pay for wardecing an alliance ? with many corps or with only a few corps ?
|
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:21:00 -
[146] - Quote
Correct me if I've missed it, but there is no protection for the aggressor if everyone just leaves target corp except ceo. You're now stuck with a war that you can't end early and you're out of pocket.
I am particularly referring to farmer/botter corps with a handful of members. It's impossible to lock them into a war today, and with no mechanism in place to stop this or at least compensate, these exploiting cunts are even safer then before.
If plans are that ransom demands are just withdrawn from their account as a fine, then I'm ok with it. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:30:00 -
[147] - Quote
Perhaps there may be some value in the shame tag for people joining a corp that is at war as well. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
774
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:32:00 -
[148] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Wardec fees should be based on the size of the attacker not the defender, or flat fees that are not prohibitively expensive should be used.
Basing fees on the size of the attacker is too prone to abuse.
1. Kick everyone out of the corp except a skeleton crew. 2. Wardec target, pay fee for the week (which will be dirt cheap since you have hardly any members). 3. Re-invite everyone back in before the war goes live.
And if you're an alliance.
1. All corps except the executor corp drop the alliance. 2. Executor corp wardecs target, pays fee. 3. Corps rejoin alliance and now get to participate in the war.
Why is it so easy to abuse? Because the attacker is in control of when the wardec occurs, therefore they can game the system to their advantage.
Can the defending corp play games with their membership count? Yes, but since they don't know when the attack is coming, they have to keep it bulked up at all times. And if the costs do not increase linearly with size, there's a limit of how much they can raise the costs for the attacker (such as calculating using the CubeRoot() of the size).
Some combination of the following factors would probably serve well:
- A higher base fee, because even 50M is a joke these days. - A scaling cost based on total # of people involved. - A scaling cost based on the size differential between the two corps.
For the "size" calculations, take some constant fee and multiply by the CubeRoot(N), where N is either the corp size (only counting characters on active/paid accounts) or the difference between the corp size. |
Dirael Papier
Blackdust Citex Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:37:00 -
[149] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Perhaps there may be some value in the shame tag for people joining a corp that is at war as well. Wouldn't do anything to the aggressor, since they'd just be hopping between their own corps anyways so there's nobody to see their shame and go "eew we don't want this corp hopper in our corporation" and it won't prevent them from wardeccing in any way.
I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war.
For people leaving, Perhaps you can only leave to NPC corp from a corp at war (cannot join a player corp) and you have a tag on you of some sort that prevents you from joining a player corp for the duration that the war lasts. Might be overly harsh though and a terrible idea, I dunno. Perhaps individual players could make surrender offers to the deccing corp to have the tag removed. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:03:00 -
[150] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote: I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war.
Even better IMO. |
|
lady jailbait
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:51:00 -
[151] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41cJUliIuH0
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:55:00 -
[152] - Quote
Watching today's wardec bit and i'm impressed. From yesterday's reports it sounded like they were making DecShield official, now it sounds very much the opposite (which i like ^_^)
I liked the idea of not counting unsubscribed accounts towards the wardec cost, whoever asked that, i hope they bugged the devs all day about that =D
Also counting logistics into killmails is important. A lot of assholes refuse to fly logi simply because they dont get on killmails (FIT ECM DRONES NOOBS) "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1060
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:55:00 -
[153] - Quote
New war dec system is awesome as long the trial alt "shield" is cured from the code.
Good presentation and well researched stuff. This thing is hard to make perfect, but at least it will be much better now.
Get |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:40:00 -
[154] - Quote
Unlimited allies. And you can be an ally in an unlimited number of wars.
Just stop and think about that for a bit. What's gonna happen? |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:43:00 -
[155] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:(such as calculating using the CubeRoot() of the size My old suggestion lives on. Yay! ;)
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:48:00 -
[156] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Dirael Papier
Blackdust Citex Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:51:00 -
[157] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. Very true, hadn't really considered that.
Welp, no clue how one could deal with corp hopping then. vOv |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
200
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:28:00 -
[158] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Xorv wrote:Wardec fees should be based on the size of the attacker not the defender, or flat fees that are not prohibitively expensive should be used. Basing fees on the size of the attacker is too prone to abuse. [...]
Yes I suppose that's true. Although, if you put a 7 day wait timer to join a corp that had declared a wardec that would eliminate that problem.
Another way would be to have Wardecs of different sizes at the point of declaration with a set max number of players you can have in the wardecing corp/alliance. Exceed it and the deced corp/alliance can drop the war against them if they wish.
For example Corp A wishes to wardec Corp B. Corp A has 45 members and takes out a Wardec against Corp B which allows 50 max players. During the course of the war that week Corp A takes on 8 new members giving them a total of 53 which exceeds the limit of 50 players the Wardec they paid for, and now Corp B can end the War immediately if they choose at no cost to themselves and Corp A will have to wait to renew the war with a new Wardec that allows for more than 53 members.
The larger the max number of player a corp can have during the wardec the higher the cost obviously, with an added set fee for wardecing an Alliance.
A Corp/Alliance can choose whatever max number they wish to pay for, if a one man corp wants to pay for a Wardec that allows for 200 characters they may do so.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:11:00 -
[159] - Quote
The size of the wardeccing corp should also be a factor so large corporations are less inclined to attack smaller ones.
500.000 ISK per playing character in wardeccing corp (no trial accounts, no lapsed accounts).
Prevent member-padding by wardecced corporations to artificially increase the cost of the wardec.
Characters of trial accounts don't count to the member count. But characters from lapsed accounts shouldn't either.
Declaring a war should have consequences for the wardeccing corp if they bite off more they can chew (lots of allies)
If the wardecced corporation declares the war mutual (can be done anytime), the wardeccing corporation can then only end the war by formally surrendering themselves.
Prevent the situation where its unclear about who can shoot who, which can be abused, when allies join the war.
If a ally joins a multiple wardecced corporation, they always join in ALL wars they are currently fighting. If additional corporations wardec, the mercenaries can choose to break the contract.
Lump sum fee is determined by amount of wars of the wardeccing corporations, not amount of wars of the wardecced corporations.
Wardeccing corporations should not be able to wardec a ton of small corporations at once. So this should multiply the lump sum. But they should be able to get help in a war with a lot of additional allies, by having another corporation declare war. This should NOT multiply the lump sum, otherwise the war becomes enormously unbalanced in favor of the wardecced corp because they can escalate with an endless amount of allies for no incrementing cost, which the wardeccing can not.
I also think the base lump sum should be 10M ISK for wardeccing a corporation and 50M for an alliance. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Miranda Bowie
The Paratwa Ka
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:12:00 -
[160] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh so powerful then they join a random corp and get told to stay docked for a week. The only corp that forces their membership to dock while wardecced is the University. Every other corp, big and small, they learn to adapt, they learn to play the game. The University doesn't teach people how to play the game, they farm votes for Kelduum. :) Wow, three blatantly false statements in a row. Nice. I see your understanding of the WSOP today is as poor as it was when you were in it...
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Those without it do what EvE Uni does, as it's the only way to make wardeccers get bored. Or you can create insta-undocks and learn how to use d-scan and local. You can still function as an industrialist under a wardec, and not go looking for fights. Run some clones out to the assends of highsec and jump between them every 24hrs, and do your stuff. Don't keep operating in your usual haunts. ADAPT. Mmm, yes. I recently joined a PvP corp, and we had a corp event where we all went out and were taught and practiced these skills. Of course, it was somewhat redundant for me, as I'd already been taught these skills... at EVE University. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:07:00 -
[161] - Quote
All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
- Streamlining the game (also seen in the last month with the items name changes and blogs about changing ships skills etc).
- Redoing POSes and greatly spreading their use so "everybody" will want one.
They will NOT achieve this by making more bizantine (and thus exploitable) rules, like "you can wardec this for Y paying Z but if K <> gamma then alpha = beta^2".
They got it for the new aggression mechanics why they can't get it for wardecs?
Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. No, a guy with 1 hour to play a day won't subject himself to the burden of finding a reliable and good merc corp (expensive and when I ask them: "no way, we don't do these menial boring things like protecting a POS"). They will just tear the POS down, do some pathetic PvE (EVE's PvE is possibly the worst in the industry), get bored and leave.
Why don't they GET IT that people in 2012 just won't bend down and suck prepotent bully d!cks "I pee in your face because that makes feel me good!" and will just choose another game? Don't get me wrong, it's OK to get a wardec by a competitor and whatever but allowing the above mentality people in a social paid experience? Don't make me laugh. A regular person will just think that CCP are nonsensical at allowing that behavior and will go play a game where punks "I do this (list here any obnoxious garbage not related with competitive game play) because I can" get banned.
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere.
Is that a corp? No, it's a cumbersome outdated game mechanic that forces everybody to form a corp for anything.
If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success they have to implement a sub-corporation entity where people can do their crap without getting constantly focused by 100 times as stronger entities who won before even beginning "a match".
"LOL noob HTFUADAPT". Sure, then why did they create FW? To not force people in the tiresome 0.0 politics and general bull$ht. Why did they create WHs and why are they so damn successful? Again, to not force people in tiresome 0.0 blobfare and politics.
So, why typical low SP fresh people have to subject themselves to tiresome grief-decs, rackets, alt-wardec-while-mains-get-hired-to-protect, RR docking games? What's competitive about it? What's challenging about this? What's intellectually interesting about this? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Municherus
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
Well i think those are nice ideeas about the war but some of them are unbalanced like the war fee for small corps. Why increased fee when they can ally with others to help protect them? Anyways this could be nice begining for mercs or a verry bitter end. If the war deck fee increases the small merc corps will have to join the big aliances of mercs out there. As far as i know it has never been much rezistance even from the big aliances in game when you war deck them only small gangs roaming to catch a few gate gate or station campers so even if the new mecanics comes in place the targets will always run with they'r tail behind the legs or fly cloakie ships or stabbed or what else god knows. Lets sit back, relax and let CCP amaze us like always!(they helped suiciders in high sec with T3 BC like tornados) |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:08:00 -
[163] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
I really liked the part where they said they wanted wars to be more hardcore and after that everything just seemed right. Many of us were afraid they would cave in to the hisec bears and some even interpreted the crimewatch changes as a sign of that. But I think we can relax now. CCP have good intentions and they are sticking with their vision. EVE is real.
EVE has grown every year since launch, yes even the year of the summer rage 2011, by making a game that has consequences and meaning. Many leave in frustration but those who stay become loyal customers that stay in the game for years to come. That is the secret behind CCPs success. Caving in to the demands of hisec bears has a great chance of backfiring. Thankfully they seem to realize that and has chosen their path.
U mad? |
Rengerel en Distel
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:09:00 -
[164] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
Don't get hung up on that, as it includes the possible 60M ps3 subscribers playing Dust.
Don't assume bad intent, when stupidity is the much more likely cause. |
Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:10:00 -
[165] - Quote
In before 2k members mining corps costing 1bisk a week to dec! |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:31:00 -
[166] - Quote
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:In before 2k members mining corps costing 1bisk a week to dec! One bisk is p cheap heh. |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:42:00 -
[167] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Dirael Papier wrote:I dunno, I'd just prefer completely disabling a corp's ability to accept new members during a war. That would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. I also agree that a complete stop to join/leaving while in war is too much, just as 7 days is too much (as suggested by Xorv), but a 3 day wait might be acceptable. I think 1 or 2 days is probably not enough, and all this also doesn't solve the problem of aggressors just hopping into another corp to wardec the same target over and over... I'm not even sure if there is a solution to that though...
I'm firmly against not counting currently unsubbed accounts though, or actually only counting accounts (not characters). This gives too much (of what is essentially out-of-game) information about the corp you're about to wardec. I can just open the wardec-window on Corp X and can clearly see in the price how many accounts or unsubbed chars are in that corp. This information isn't even available to the corp themselves (the director would surely LOVE to kick unsubbed accounts). It's even worse with accounts (vs. characters), as that information should NEVER be available! EVER!
I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer. |
Kira Vanachura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:07:00 -
[168] - Quote
Allendra Sormana wrote:I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer. I'm not convinced it's that obvious. There are good reasons why most games protect new players from griefers. Removing that protection would mean corporations with new players become the target of choice even more than they are now. The problem is abuse; people might create free accounts to make wardeccing more expensive. I hope CCP will find a better solution to solve that problem. Suggestions are welcomed. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:21:00 -
[169] - Quote
some cool stuff, some not so cool
i miss the option of "escalating" a war
a defender calling more than one ally should allow the agressor to also call one (allowing the defender to always have one more ally than the agressor)
also something like "hand over poco or pos X" to end war" would be really really cool |
Miranda Nebail
The Escort Service Iberians.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:22:00 -
[170] - Quote
Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" |
|
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:26:00 -
[171] - Quote
Miranda Nebail wrote:Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" It's saying: Get the fck out of hisec. |
Miranda Nebail
The Escort Service Iberians.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:28:00 -
[172] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Miranda Nebail wrote:Pricing is way unbalanced.
Basically is telling new players that want to pvp: "Go mining to make isk to start a war" It's saying: Get the fck out of hisec.
Actually, is telling everyone to go to 0.0 and join the drones there pressing F1-F8.
Mining beats that. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5764
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:43:00 -
[173] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wow, the pricing structure needs work I think. I'd be more in favor of some kind of logarithmic function surrounding member counts. At the roundtable, I brought up the idea of (essentially) maintaining the same pricing structure but having it rely on relative numbers or ratios instead of absolute numbers, and it was met with some general approval among the others. Basically, have whatever cost you like for each wartarget, but make it count per # characters difference between aggressor and defender.
This would have a couple of interesting consequences.
First, it would get rid of the GÇ£oh, let's just go after the small guy because they (still) cost fsck-all to decGÇ¥. It would instead ever so slightly encourage GÇ£oh, let's go after the same-sized guysGÇ¥.
Secondly, to actually achieve that GÇ£same-sizedGÇ¥ status, I can easily see a cottage industry of padding corps and alliances on both sides of the table. With the current system, alt-padding becomes the new dec shield. With a Gêå-system, both sides would have some interesting choices which open up for some new business for the entrepid entrepreneurs. A corp who thinks that it might be attacked a lot could sign up for membership in a padding-alliance to drive the cost up for those annoying tiny-number gank squads. This comes with the risk of some other gank squad coming along and picking a fight, but there's more of them than they're quite likely more dangerous than the tiny squad you first wanted to dissuade.
On the other side of the fence, the gank squad could essentially sign up for a similar service that some alliance provides, simply to get their numbers up to where they can now go after a very large group of juicy targets without paying bajillions for it. Sure, the padding alliance would now be embroiled in a war it has no intent in joining and/or fighting, just because those belligerent newcomers want to mass-pop haulers, but on the other hand, that alliance might spend all their time in w-space, so this just becomes a new way of passively making business on the side.
The whole idea the devs presented was that you paid for gaining access to targets. More targets = easier to find = moar ISKies!! Few targets = harder to find = less ISKGǪ the problem is, of course, that that's just nonsense. It's not difficult in the slightest to find a small group, and that this pricing structure just means large alliances get an extra layer of security for free that their sheer numbers alone should provide. Making it a relative-size or ratio scheme, it would rather (admittedly only ever so slightly, and with the aforementioned caveats) incentivise something that could GÇö at a distance GÇö be considered approaching a GÇ£fairGÇ¥ fight. The caveats also open up for some fun player-run cottage industries, and that's always a bonus in my view.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. [GǪ]
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere. The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule GÇö if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.
If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
If you don't want wardecs, then you will get none of those things and you have perfectly operational NPC corps and NPC facilities to take your mind off of things.
Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what? Even more business opportunities: hire a GÇ£moon valetGÇ¥ corp that plunks down a dummy POS at GÇ£yourGÇ¥ moon while you protect your assets from the wardec GÇö when the dust settles, they tear it down and you put yours back up at the same spot as before. You could probably also find various mission-crazy people who are willing to act as standings-padding, bumping your standings up for a few ISK so you don't have to kick and re-invite all the regulars every time you have to save that POS.
Quote:If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success They don't. They want the GÇ£POS for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardecGÇ¥ to have a degree of success. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:07:00 -
[174] - Quote
[quote=Poetic StanzielThat would lead to an unbelievable amount of abuse. You could wardec the University continually and ensure that they could never recruit new members ever again. Whereas some of us might find that hilarious, it's not beneficial to the game overall. [/quote]
Any "member locking" or "corp locking (to an alliance)" for the defending party is indeed simply open to pure grief-play as described. However, if the aggressor (initiator) of the wardec was placed under such restrictions - it would be justice, but still unbalanced.
The solution there is probably that: Attempting to join the aggressor alliance / corp as a member / corp will only take effect on the following downtime. So if you have outbound, non-mutual, wardecs, new member corps/players will have to wait until the daily downtime before they officially become a member. Which removes a lot of the meta-gaming that currently occurs. |
Azorean
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:13:00 -
[175] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All this bull$hit is going to backfire.
They stated at Fanfest:
- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year
- Streamlining the game (also seen in the last month with the items name changes and blogs about changing ships skills etc).
- Redoing POSes and greatly spreading their use so "everybody" will want one.
They will NOT achieve this by making more bizantine (and thus exploitable) rules, like "you can wardec this for Y paying Z but if K <> gamma then alpha = beta^2".
They got it for the new aggression mechanics why they can't get it for wardecs?
Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. No, a guy with 1 hour to play a day won't subject himself to the burden of finding a reliable and good merc corp (expensive and when I ask them: "no way, we don't do these menial boring things like protecting a POS"). They will just tear the POS down, do some pathetic PvE (EVE's PvE is possibly the worst in the industry), get bored and leave.
Why don't they GET IT that people in 2012 just won't bend down and suck prepotent bully d!cks "I pee in your face because that makes feel me good!" and will just choose another game? Don't get me wrong, it's OK to get a wardec by a competitor and whatever but allowing the above mentality people in a social paid experience? Don't make me laugh. A regular person will just think that CCP are nonsensical at allowing that behavior and will go play a game where punks "I do this (list here any obnoxious garbage not related with competitive game play) because I can" get banned.
The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere.
Is that a corp? No, it's a cumbersome outdated game mechanic that forces everybody to form a corp for anything.
If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success they have to implement a sub-corporation entity where people can do their crap without getting constantly focused by 100 times as stronger entities who won before even beginning "a match".
"LOL noob HTFUADAPT". Sure, then why did they create FW? To not force people in the tiresome 0.0 politics and general bull$ht. Why did they create WHs and why are they so damn successful? Again, to not force people in tiresome 0.0 blobfare and politics.
So, why typical low SP fresh people have to subject themselves to tiresome grief-decs, rackets, alt-wardec-while-mains-get-hired-to-protect, RR docking games? What's competitive about it? What's challenging about this? What's intellectually interesting about this?
Agree on all counts! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
403
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:18:00 -
[176] - Quote
Putting restrictions of the behavior of the aggressor but not the defender biases wars heavily in favor of the defender, which is unfair. Particularly considering that it is fairly common for defenders to have mercs hop in and out of their corps to help them fight war targets. |
Masral Kabo
Peregrine Guard
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:26:00 -
[177] - Quote
Agree 100% with Tippia.
And lol at Vahrokha for thinking everyone should be able to operate a POS with zero risk. If you cant defend corp assets you should lose them. |
Rikeka
The Escort Service Iberians.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
An increase of the wardecs cost was expected... but this new system is criminal.
What's funny is that this will increase the amount of high sec gankers/suicides Why pay 4b to wardec GoonSwarm, when I can just gank any freighter moving their logistic lines, and it's free.
Hell, this will also only make already big alliances even bigger.
Eventually, this will kill small alliances. Not only small ones, but new ones, and newbie-friendly ones that were not targetted before because they were not good targets.
But if declaring them is cheaper than declaring big 0.0 alliances, so ****'em, right?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG] |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:38:00 -
[179] - Quote
Quote:In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.
That's exactly my opinion. Member count will be gamed just as war dec count is already (a.k.a. "dec shielding"). An inverse member count scale is interesting, but can also be gamed. For example, 100-member corp breaks into five 20-member corps and opens a chat channel ... now you need five decs that are five times as costly to attack them all. Tying war cost to corp income potential imposes a risk/reward tradeoff that is much harder to game.
Also, I disagree with the premise that a war dec from a small aggressor is less damaging than a large aggressor. When a 2-man PvP corp decs a 100-man indy corp, all 100 defenders have to adjust their game play but the aggressor does not. It's sort of the high sec equivalent of the afk cloaker. At least when a larger corp decs you, there's an enemy online and possibly in space for you to go fight with. I'm not saying that the 2-man dec vs. 100 should be forbidden, but it shouldn't be cheap either.
|
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
195
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:57:00 -
[180] - Quote
Shouldn't the war cost shrink the closer you get to pairity in the corp sizes involved? The modifier should increase with disparity in corp sizes. |
|
Rikeka
The Escort Service Iberians.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 15:19:00 -
[181] - Quote
So, if the attacker is smaller, the cost should increase? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG] |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 15:30:00 -
[182] - Quote
Ana Vyr wrote:Shouldn't the war cost shrink the closer you get to pairity in the corp sizes involved? The modifier should increase with disparity in corp sizes. If CCP legitimately thinks that wars are underutilized and that they should happen more often they way to go would be to have the only thing that affects cost be the number of wars the attacker is involved in.
Having wars costs scale with the size of the target will make wars cost much, much more than they do currently and that will make wars less common. Period. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:20:00 -
[183] - Quote
Rikeka wrote:So, if the attacker is smaller, the cost should increase?
Depends how you structure it.
For instance, you could make it so that if the target is larger then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/4) to calculate the cost differential in that part of the equation. And if the target is smaller then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/2.5) to calculate the cost differential. So it becomes slightly more expensive for a large corp to declare a small corp rather then the other way around.
A = base cost to declare war, 40M is a good starting point
B = base cost of the size of the target (member count, excluding trials and inactive accounts), 40M might be a good weight, which should be scaled based on (N ^ 1/4)
C = base cost of the difference in size of member count, 40M might be a good weight, scaled as either (N ^ 1/4) if the defender is larger or (N ^ 1/2.5) if the defender is smaller
A note on (N ^ 1/2.5 vs N^1/4 or N^1/3):
With Sqrt(N), the difference between N=10 and N=10k is a factor of about 31.6 With N^(1/2.5), the difference is a factor of only 15.8 With N^(1/3), the difference between a 10-person and a 10k person entity is a factor of only 10 in scaling With N^(1/3.5), the difference is a factor of 7.2 With N^(1/4), the difference is a factor of 5.6
Here's what happens with the numbers, assuming:
A = 40M, B = 40M, C = 40M Small Attacker, Big Defender - COST = A + B * (target_members^(1/4)) + C * (diff^(1/4)) Big Attacker, Small Defender - COST = A + B * (target_members^(1/4)) + C * (diff^(1/2.5))
1v1 (atk/def) = 80M ISK/wk 10v1 = 180M 1v10 = 176M 100v1 = 331M 1v100 = 292M 10k vs 1 = 1672M 1 vs 10k = 840M 10k vs 10k = 440M
Using only "target size" means that small entities can be pushed around for miniscule costs by very large entities. That's probably not good for the game long-term and would lead to very large entities being the only way to survive. So the size difference needs to be accounted for in some manner. One reason would be that in order for CONCORD to look the other way while you make war in hi-sec, you need to pay a bigger bribe each week.
Using only the "difference in size" would result in small entities being pushed around by aggressors who can easily game their membership counts. They would figure out the size of the target (say 10 pilots), boot all the optional members out of their corp, initiate the wardec for cheap, then bring the members back on board for the war during the 24h warm-up. So you can't just rely on that as the scaling factor either.
You have to factor in both B (target size) as well as C (size difference). By using both metrics to scale the costs of the wardec fee, you lessen the amount of meta-gaming that can be played and you level the playing field (a bit more) for both small entities and large entities, without making either immune to the other due to costs. |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:22:00 -
[184] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: If CCP legitimately thinks that wars are underutilized and that they should happen more often they way to go would be to have the only thing that affects cost be the number of wars the attacker is involved in.
Having wars costs scale with the size of the target will make wars cost much, much more than they do currently and that will make wars less common. Period.
You can have a lot of war declarations and still have the war system "underutilized", if the wars don't result in much fighting. For example if the defending corp just docks up for the duration, or the attacker just afk's in the defender's favorite mission hub, the war has little "utility" in the sense of active PvP. Station games can hardly be called fighting either.
Not that scaling dec cost with number of defending corp members will help. Some wars that would have been fought hard might not be declared at all in the new system due to cost, as you pointed out.
The most important change that will improve war "utilization" IMO is the merc contract market; it could encourage some PvP-challenged corps to come out and fight, who otherwise would have just docked up or disbanded. |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:29:00 -
[185] - Quote
I had to laugh Tippia..
Quote: If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot. |
Dutarro
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:40:00 -
[186] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
For instance, you could make it so that if the target is larger then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/4) to calculate the cost differential in that part of the equation. And if the target is smaller then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/2.5) to calculate the cost differential. So it becomes slightly more expensive for a large corp to declare a small corp rather then the other way around.
or just scale dec cost with ( number of attacking pilots + number of defending pilots ): * small attacker vs. small defender = cheap war * large attacker vs. small defender = expensive war, not worth the cost for so few targets * small attacker vs. large defender = expensive war, high cost per attacking player * large attacker vs. large defender = very expensive war, but the defender can afford it
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5767
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:48:00 -
[187] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:I had to laugh Tippia.. Quote:If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs. Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot. If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Resivan
Driftglass Development
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:59:00 -
[188] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muestereate wrote:I had to laugh Tippia.. Quote:If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs. Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot. If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.
If you join a corp large enough to deter war decs, what are the chances that they'll give you the roles you need to use a POS or have free access to the corp's hangers and wallet? If those are why you want to be in a player corp, might as well stay NPC. The chat's usually better anyway.
The market signal basing costs solely on number of defenders sends is that two types of organizations are desirable: too small to bother with and too expensive to be worth it.
|
Rikeka
The Escort Service Iberians.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:02:00 -
[189] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muestereate wrote:I had to laugh Tippia.. Quote:If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs. Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot. If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.
This.
I just hope CCP thinks this over. Sure, decs could be a bit more pricey, but the new costs are a wallet killer.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG] |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:04:00 -
[190] - Quote
So you guys all want to control war? How futile. Thats not wars nature. When a nation declares war on another, all the connected parties are suddenly stakeholders in that war. For instance if you attack Goonswarm, You put tech at risk. Say I make a lot of money on t2? My first interest would be to profit from the rise but if the tide turned I would want to protect them. If I was a large customer, there are some corps that might be interested in helping me so they could maintain their market
Now paying to fight and you all say this is a pvp game. Doesn't that set off dangerous pay to play bells in your head. Is fighting people that don't really want to fight that important to you that you will pay billions. This whole corp concept is broken
I'm assuming your only talking about hi sec here? cause you don't need decs in null and low has no concord? or is it the standings loss
From my view, they only reason to have a pos in high sec is to to do print research specifically copies for t2. I can think of a couple other reasons in low and null
Whats the use of offices. It give me hangers. Hangers need to be managed to reduce liability, thats work not play
Wallets, if I give someone wallet unlike a hanger they can take from it. More liability for one person to steal from all
Corp taxes, why do you even need them except to pay for offices
Shares. CCP mentioned a bank but if your corps shares cant trade there and go up and down with your fortunes, why ? dividends and votes? more liability
Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5768
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:16:00 -
[191] - Quote
Resivan wrote:If you join a corp large enough to deter war decs, what are the chances that they'll give you the roles you need to use a POS or have free access to the corp's hangers and wallet? If you're going to make use of them in a way that benefits the corp, very high. Exactly what benefits there are to the corp will change with this revampGǪ
Quote:The market signal basing costs solely on number of defenders sends is that two types of organizations are desirable: too small to bother with and too expensive to be worth it. GǪwhich is why we suggested the relative pricing to them during the roundtable and why this suggestion was met with widespread approval among the players. Just throw a few more people behind the idea and it just might happen.
Muestereate wrote:Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one. Again, excellent. Everyone wins. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Molden Heath Angels
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:26:00 -
[192] - Quote
current dec shielding and alliance hopping etc is just lame
good thing this finally gets attention
i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days.
i would want to note that consider also ownerships of pos's etc. so there will be no loophole to save pos by switching corps etc. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5768
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:29:00 -
[193] - Quote
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days. This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:31:00 -
[194] - Quote
I just wanted to chime in with a vote to scale the cost of the war down if the attacker is smaller than the defender too.
As an example I just went through this headache last month with a small 3 man corp, my 1 man corp was going to dec (and before crybabies come in, they started it!). While I was waiting out the voting period they joined a 30 man alliance and that suddenly raised the cost for me to 50 mil to dec the whole alliance. Now here's the thing... I was still up for it. But after some recon, and some RL stuff, 50 mil for the chance to station camp the few guys in my TZ for a week seemed a waste. So while I think scaling the war dec price to protect the small corps from the big guys is good, lets also scale so the small guys can fight back against a bigger guy if they want too without breaking their bank. |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:35:00 -
[195] - Quote
Really, what about financial balance, this sounds so expensive. Wouldn't it be cheaper just to gank them plus they have no warning and live in constant fear? Why pay all that money just to let people know whether or not its safe to go mine or not? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
429
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:38:00 -
[196] - Quote
Lexmana wrote: I really liked the part where they said they wanted wars to be more hardcore and after that everything just seemed right. Many of us were afraid they would cave in to the hisec bears and some even interpreted the crimewatch changes as a sign of that. But I think we can relax now. CCP have good intentions and they are sticking with their vision. EVE is real.
EVE has grown every year since launch, yes even the year of the summer rage 2011, by making a game that has consequences and meaning. Many leave in frustration but those who stay become loyal customers that stay in the game for years to come. That is the secret behind CCPs success. Caving in to the demands of hisec bears has a great chance of backfiring. Thankfully they seem to realize that and has chosen their path.
U mad?
Let's see the dire "consequences" a 30 men corp gets deccing a 1 man corp with 1 POS. Oh wait they have none.
EvE has grown every year? Sure. The new marketing guy was very good showing how WoW, GW and stuff tanked after some years while EvE is going strong.
He just forgot the little details like, how many decades would EvE take to ever get to Blizzard's profitability made in 5 years. He also forgot how GW sold 6.5M subs (not counting extras) and GW2 will sell more millions.
It's just different business models and CCP can't go boasting around their unique growth when the others don't even rely on constant growth and earn with new releases and patch cycles.
Tippia wrote: The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule GÇö if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.
If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
The point is that they want to remake POS to make almost everyone want one. Plus they plan to replace station services with player provided ones.
Imagine everyone having to setup a corp just for this new kind of personal POS. Sounds quite redundant to say the least. They have to go beyond the 1 POS 1 corp concept if they want "1h to play time per day" people to get involved into that stuff.
Tippia wrote: Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what?
I suppose you have this vast experience at having mercs deccing you at your 20th day of copying a capital ship BPO, right? And then drop the wardec and 1 week later wardec again so you just lose zillions of ice and time.
Guess what happens when you try hiring "counter-mercs"? "Sorry we don't do this, guarding a POS 24/7 is crap" and the few who accept want 1B. So you shell 1B for a sh!tty medium personal use POS and the next week 1B again?
Once again "a game of consequences" on whom? 99% of the consequences are on the shoulders of the industrialist, GREAT concept we got.
Tippia wrote: They don't. They want the GÇ£POS for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardecGÇ¥ to have a degree of success
This cannot be, else they'd just leave everything as is, since this is the current situation: everyone can have a small POS if they want even right now.
Masral Kabo wrote:Agree 100% with Tippia.
And lol at Vahrokha for thinking everyone should be able to operate a POS with zero risk. If you cant defend corp assets you should lose them.
I am talking about the NEW type of "POS for everyone" concept. Not going to work if you have the same situation you have today and it will work worse with the new wardec rules. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Cucumis melo
Red Star Militia
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:40:00 -
[197] - Quote
Haven't bothered reading the entire thread so I'm not sure if this has been suggested before.
Why isn't the dec pricetag based on the attackers member count rather than defenders? It both makes sense in that you "pay per char disregarded by CONCORD" and that balances the corp sizes. Having a 100+ char corp offensive dec should always cost. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
429
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:41:00 -
[198] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muestereate wrote:Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one. Again, excellent. Everyone wins.
Nope. No reason to run a corp alone even today. Other MMOs implementing "player made housing" give everyone the chance to have their own thing and if they join a guild they get additional benefits.
In EvE there's no "personal" solution, even as 1 man you must enter the massively huge burden to upkeep a corporation, buy an office and so on just to have your personal home. Not realistic (nobody needs a corp IRL to have their house) and just redundant.
Tippia wrote:This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7.
This will be exploited to hell. I can imagine actual software being made to scan all the corps (it's already done btw) and dec them 1 by 1 just to get surrender-racket ISK rolling in.
Once again the "game of consequences" means the "PvP" corp either gets money or gets the PvP they want, the other only gets to pay or lose their assets. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:50:00 -
[199] - Quote
Well actually to have a small pos in a corp in High sec requires a whole corp full of level 4 mission runners. My experience is that mission runners want nothing to do with hauling fuel or doing research, recruiting new players interupts your ability to put up POS's. Kicking corp members and asking to rejoin is asking for defections cause a lot of peopl only sitck around cause its more comfortable than moving all your stuff in and out of hangers and making new friends.
The standing system or High sec POS's and activities of Industrialists just doesn't scale easily. Unless this is fixed too. POS's will remain liabilities. Just think if goons couldn't put up pos's cause they have to many accounts registered? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5768
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:58:00 -
[200] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The point is that they want to remake POS to make almost everyone want one. Plus they plan to replace station services with player provided ones.
Imagine everyone having to setup a corp just for this new kind of personal POS. Sounds quite redundant to say the least. They have to go beyond the 1 POS 1 corp concept if they want "1h to play time per day" people to get involved into that stuff. GǪand that doesn't in the slightest affect the point I'm making: want a POS? You get the wardec. If they make POSes more desirable, then that makes it a more interesting cost-benefit analysis: are they awesome enough that you want to deal with the decs?
Quote:I suppose you have this vast experience at having mercs deccing you at your 20th day of copying a capital ship BPO, right? Yes. There are ways around this.
Quote:This cannot be, else they'd just leave everything as is, since this is the current situation: everyone can have a small POS if they want even right now. No. The current situation is that POSes are invulnerable and you can have one whether you can stomach wardecs or not. With this change, the GÇ£or notGÇ¥ part is getting removed.
Quote:I am talking about the NEW type of "POS for everyone" concept. GǪwhich isn't GÇ£for everyoneGÇ¥ GÇö it's GÇ£for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardecGÇ¥. Again: want the POS? You get the wardec. POSes being made more interesting doesn't make any difference here. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5768
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:03:00 -
[201] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nope. No reason to run a corp alone even today. RiiiiiightGǪ that's why no-one ever does it, right? There are plenty of reasons to do it today; there will be plenty of reasons to do it after this change.
Quote:This will be exploited to hell. I can imagine actual software being made to scan all the corps (it's already done btw) and dec them 1 by 1 just to get surrender-racket ISK rolling in. GǪwhich will show up in the history and will be quite easy to research and tie together.
Quote:I can foresee how it'll go with player driven station services: everybody in a decent placement (i.e. 3 jumps off Jita) will be permanently wardecced by mega-huge corps cartels who will seize the control of the whole area. Say goodbye to the "personal POS" (or whatever the involved facility will be). Yes? So? Just because the larger organisations will monopolise the best spots (which makes sense and which already happens) doesn't mean the personal POS goes out the window.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Kosmoto Gothwen
Frenemy Logicians
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:31:00 -
[202] - Quote
First off I'm glad CCP has decided to look at repairing a system that simply doesn't work with how rich pilots/corps/alliances are now. However I see a few issues with the new proposed system. So my suggestion is as follows
war dec fee = base cost + ((difference of pilots with active accounts between war decing corp and target corp * variation) * fee)
So base fee is what ever is decided, lets say stick with the proposed 20mil for now, and keep the 500k per pilot additional fee. I added a variation to the additional fee so there was some luck involved (+/- 10%). First analyze number of pilots in aggressive corp and only take into account pilots linked to an active account (include trial accounts since they potentially would be active in the war but) then do the same for the target corp/alliance.
Psuedo BASE = 2000000 ADDITIONALFEE = 50000 variation = random(-0.1 to 0.1
Analyze pilots in agresorCorp for pilots linked to active account (lets say 75 if(pilot === activeAccount) { aggressCorpActivePilots+ }
Analyze pilots in tagetCorp for pilots linked to active account (lets say 50 if(pilot === activeAccount) { targetCorpActivePilots+ }
if(aggressCorpActivePilots >= targetCorpActivePilots) { sizeDifference = aggressCorpActivePilots - targetCorpActivePilot } else { sizeDifference = targetCorpActivePilots - aggressCorpActrivePilot }
totalFee = BASE + (ADDITIONALFEE * variation * sizeDifference
Some of the advantages I see with this is it encourages corp/alliance to seek active pilots for the event of a war and purge inactive members. Everyone hates joining a corp that is bloated with pilots who no longer play. When their initial impression is 'it's a big corp they must be active' leaves a disgusted feeling with the corp. This also encourages organizations to focus on targets of similar size where as the initial scheme encourages corps to maintain inactive members and you have to recruit everyone possible just to stay out of war dec's which is simply a poor corp model, for it to bloat out of control. |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:44:00 -
[203] - Quote
Kira Vanachura wrote:Allendra Sormana wrote:I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer. I'm not convinced it's that obvious. There are good reasons why most games protect new players from griefers. Removing that protection would mean corporations with new players become the target of choice even more than they are now. The problem is abuse; people might create free accounts to make wardeccing more expensive. I hope CCP will find a better solution to solve that problem. Suggestions are welcomed. The main troubling thing for me is, that it allows the declaring corp to scope for noob-rich corps that way. If the war-fee is significantly lower than the member count suggest you can expect that (since it has many trials) it also has many relatively new players. I don't know if this is information that should be available either... But I think it outweighs the abuse-potential of counting trials (remember: up to 3 chars per account to pad your corp numbers).
Tippia wrote:The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule GÇö if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.
If you want a POS, you get wardecs. If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs. If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
If you don't want wardecs, then you will get none of those things and you have perfectly operational NPC corps and NPC facilities to take your mind off of things. For me the problem is that there are two things that are (pretty much) mutually exclusive. If you want your own POS (in highsec), you not only have to be in a corp (which is fine), but you have to be in a small to tiny corp. I'd love to be in a medium sized corp for various reasons (corp ops, people to play/talk with, and much more), but I can't! You need corp standings of 10x sec-status to put up the damn thing, no corp can achieve that without a just ridiculous amount of rules about who can join and what standings are required. Also any corp basically has to hand me the "keys to the kingdom" (meaning any POS they have) if they want to allow me to put one up for myself. Just not gonna happen.... The only remaining way are alliances, who generally aren't too keen on 5 char member corps.
How about this: You can launch a POS for yourself, but only if you are in a player corp. You can allow your corp access or your alliance as usual, but generally it's your own POS. Wardecs affecting the corp obviously also affect your POS. For any serious industrialist there is no real alternative to having a POS just for yourself and maybe your alts (if small to medium POS) or at least access to a large one.
Tippia wrote:Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what? Even more business opportunities: hire a GÇ£moon valetGÇ¥ corp that plunks down a dummy POS at GÇ£yourGÇ¥ moon while you protect your assets from the wardec GÇö when the dust settles, they tear it down and you put yours back up at the same spot as before. You could probably also find various mission-crazy people who are willing to act as standings-padding, bumping your standings up for a few ISK so you don't have to kick and re-invite all the regulars every time you have to save that POS. It's actually even easier: Just create an alt-corp and put the thing up yourself in the meantime... Obviously requires an alt with good standings toward your faction though ;) It can also be seen as an issue that it's just not sensible (ever) to leave a small POS running in case of a wardec. Even if you try to upgrade defenses, it can relatively easy be taken down by just a couple of guys.
About the WarDec fee: I agree that it should be defined by the difference. If you are a 10 man corp and you wardec a 150 man corp you obviously don't expect them all to fight back (or at all), I like the explanation that this is basically the high-sec equivalent of the afk-cloaker. If you are 150 guys declaring war on a 10 man corp that is quite obviously an unfair fight. Both are examples of unproportional wars. If your 100 char corp declared war against another 100 char corp that seems much fairer and can therefore also be cheaper. I can also imagine a factor to be used in the formula to scale the price with the size of both corps, so that 10v10 wars are cheaper than 100v100. 10v100 or 100v10 should still be noticeably more expensive than either of those though!
All in all it seems like a good system to me |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:01:00 -
[204] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days. This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7. This requires some form of actually working protection against them though. I love the idea, but what's the point if most chars of that corp just hop into the next corp (or create one) to just repeat the process again? I would suggest to tie the negotiated "peace time" to ever char who was or is in the attacking corp during any time of the war. If the aggressing corp accept the surrender, then no corp can declare war on the defenders in the negotiated time with even one char of the original corp in them. Also, if one of those join a corp that is at war with the (previous) defenders, no matter if the war is new or old, it immediately ends (or rather enters the 24 hour cool down). Why everyone who was in the attacking corp at any time during the war? Otherwise they can just all leave before accepting the peace negotiation and we're back to square one (they join another corp and re-declare the war). If it is blocked that you can leave (or join) a corp that has declared a war against someone during war time this becomes somewhat easier to implement, but that is still a rather strict limitation.
Obviously this would need to be shown somewhere in the UI, so recruiting corps see against whom they can't declare a war and for how long if they accept an application. |
Ting von Amarr
Federal Institute Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:00:00 -
[205] - Quote
There is something i don't understand ...
When i read this thread, there is lot of people saying such things as "Kill all these carebears", "You have fun just running your POS, burn in hell etc ...".
So seem, the game is missing some PVP action, that people want to annoy other player who are NOT interested at all by PVP.
So :
1 - Do people not interested at all by PVP, and just taking fun with little industrial things with 1 or 2 friends have to stop the game ?
2 - How possible that people are missing some PVP action while in 0.0, if you roam 30 jumps, maybe you'll find 1 or 2 targets ? Where are the other targets, you guys, who wants to PVP ? Why all these people asking the industrialist to go out of the game don't go in 0.0 to have their PVP dose ? Not the balls ?
That new system is just completely idiot ! Look like someone think 15 mn to the new system 1 hour before the announce.
Let casual, and non PVP player in Peace ! They are part of the game, and most of them bring what PVPer needs (modules, ships, and so on ...). Missionners/Incursionners don't need to be in a corp, so they don't care of wardecs.
If you want PVP, go in 0.0 NPC space, or make lowsec more populated.
If this system appear, it's the end of all little corp as it will clearly tag on them : "I'm a sheep, come to shave me !". All these little corp/casual players will loose their assets (POS), their fun (Copying/researching is almost impossible in stations), and in most case have to be log off during the War time, as lot of industrialist have Badgers/Freighters, not PVP skills.
To pay for mercs ? Do you think all little corps have billions in wallets ? I'm sure CCP_Diagoras can give us the average amount on little corps wallets (let say max 5 active members).
That system is just unfair by principe, by rules, and you guys who want to shoot on unarmed people, have a strange definition of PVP ...
(English is not my native langage, sorry). |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
780
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:12:00 -
[206] - Quote
Ting von Amarr wrote:"I'm a sheep, come to shave me !"
(English is not my native langage, sorry). We know. :)
But it's cool. EVE is multi-national. And you speak English far far better than I can speak your native tongue.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Amateratsu
The Pegasus Project
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:20:00 -
[207] - Quote
One of the biggest issues with the current war dec system is that an agressor can basicly keep a war going indefinitely.
What is needed is a system where either side can defeat the other and force the war to end, goals or targets need to be set and when 1 side achieves those goals /targets he is declared the victor and the war ends.
for example inflicting a set amount of damage / losses against the aposing side.
Has anything like this been suggested in the planned rework of the war dec system?
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
780
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:21:00 -
[208] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days. This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7.
The problem with that is it's too easy to game. The attackers would just form a 2nd corp, move to it after accepting the extra billion ISK, and re-dec. The easiest exploit would be to form 2-4 alliances with shell corps, and the member corps just move from alliance to alliance in order to be able to renew the dec. I can name a handful of PvP alliances that are setup in exactly that way, with multiple shell-alliances.
And you can't allow a timer to apply to the defender either, otherwise defenders just wardec themselves with alt-corps, declare peace, negotiate a 90-day cease-fire and become immune from further decs. Which would be far worse then the current system, where even though you can drive up the cost to wardec someone, it's still possible if you *really* want to do it.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
431
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:52:00 -
[209] - Quote
Ting von Amarr wrote:There is something i don't understand ...
When i read this thread, there is lot of people saying such things as "Kill all these carebears", "You have fun just running your POS, burn in hell etc ...".
So seem, the game is missing some PVP action, that people want to annoy other player who are NOT interested at all by PVP.
So :
1 - Do people not interested at all by PVP, and just taking fun with little industrial things with 1 or 2 friends have to stop the game ?
2 - How possible that people are missing some PVP action while in 0.0, if you roam 30 jumps, maybe you'll find 1 or 2 targets ? Where are the other targets, you guys, who wants to PVP ? Why all these people asking the industrialist to go out of the game don't go in 0.0 to have their PVP dose ? Not the balls ?
That new system is just completely idiot ! Look like someone think 15 mn to the new system 1 hour before the announce.
Let casual, and non PVP player in Peace ! They are part of the game, and most of them bring what PVPer needs (modules, ships, and so on ...). Missionners/Incursionners don't need to be in a corp, so they don't care of wardecs.
You get a lot of points, including the fact that the internet HI SEC though guys are only demanding an one sided no-counter way to kill the non PvP inclined. They won't go in low sec or WH or 0.0 because their internet thoughness stops at the "You are about to enter a low security system" warning pop up. This is why the best place to live in EvE is deep low sec, those thugs won't ever come down here.
What you don't get instead, is that this IS an unconsensual PvP game therefore you just cannot opt out of PvP here. Indeed if you want to play EvE you have to factor in losses.
Now, the old wardecs system sucked but was possible to play cops vs thieves, in the new system you'll be pinned down and your butt hole kept wide while they thrust an Avatar up inside.
"Unconsensual" has not necessarily to equal to "one sided" this is what they don't get (for convenience). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:56:00 -
[210] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Tippia wrote:Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days. This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7. The problem with that is it's too easy to game. The attackers would just form a 2nd corp, move to it after accepting the extra billion ISK, and re-dec. The easiest exploit would be to form 2-4 alliances with shell corps, and the member corps just move from alliance to alliance in order to be able to renew the dec. I can name a handful of PvP alliances that are setup in exactly that way, with multiple shell-alliances. And you can't allow a timer to apply to the defender either, otherwise defenders just wardec themselves with alt-corps, declare peace, negotiate a 90-day cease-fire and become immune from further decs. Which would be far worse then the current system, where even though you can drive up the cost to wardec someone, it's still possible if you *really* want to do it. Just see my reply a couple of posts up for a solution, but I agree that it's either rather hard to enforce or requires a lot of mechanics (which in turn requires UI elements) to work. Having the peace-treaty be a property of any member of the former attacking corp is a possible solution (disallowing future wardecs from any corp that has as a member any one or more of the chars with the peace-treaty property vs. the former defending corp), but if it's feasible to implement is another matter... There needs to be a way to check this when you want to accept someone into your corp, as he potentially comes with restrictions on wardec targets. But people probably don't want anyone (universally) to be able to see with whom they have a peace treaty active. Might use some mechanic like certificates where public visibility can be turned on and off, but that is rather complicated (and quite a bit of implementation work) for what this is supposed to accomplish.
Let's wait for someone at CCP to get into the office tomorrow and hopefully update us on what can be done and is expected to be implemented. I'm also quite unclear on what their current plans are (if any) on how to limit corp-hopping either during wars or afterwards (for gaming the war system in some/any way)...
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: ... What you don't get instead, is that this IS an unconsensual PvP game therefore you just cannot opt out of PvP here. Indeed if you want to play EvE you have to factor in losses. ... While that may be a design intent it is just not true. Yes, you can always be shot at when in space, but nobody forces you to undock in the first place. There are plenty of people who play this game without ever undocking, their playstyle is just radically different, more like a multiplayer-economy-simulation. If you do undock you are of course at some degree of risk of being shot at, but it is rather small if you have a rough idea of what you're doing and don't want to be shot at... |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
431
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:07:00 -
[211] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The point is that they want to remake POS to make almost everyone want one. Plus they plan to replace station services with player provided ones.
Imagine everyone having to setup a corp just for this new kind of personal POS. Sounds quite redundant to say the least. They have to go beyond the 1 POS 1 corp concept if they want "1h to play time per day" people to get involved into that stuff. GǪand that doesn't in the slightest affect the point I'm making: want a POS? You get the wardec. If they make POSes more desirable, then that makes it a more interesting cost-benefit analysis: are they awesome enough that you want to deal with the decs?
Oh if only "having one" was it. No, you have to grind the standings, buy one and then to fill it, anchor the modules, buy the BPOs (read: return of investment is measured in YEARS) and copy them and they take up to 1 month and longer and if you are wardecced you'll lose about 80M per each lab slot per each POS, not counting the now quite expensive fuel expense that just got made vain.
How many of the "new POS for everyone" users are going to bother with the above if they can be decced once a week? How succesful will be the feature? Let me guess... they'll try it and hope to luck out. Once they are caught they'll realize it was not worth the bother. Because a personal POS cannot be made as good as a "hard mode POS" which is already a debatable, very long term investment income.
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I suppose you have this vast experience at having mercs deccing you at your 20th day of copying a capital ship BPO, right? Yes. There are ways around this.
With the new rules? Care to list those ways? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
431
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:12:00 -
[212] - Quote
Allendra Sormana wrote:While that may be a design intent it is just not true. Yes, you can always be shot at when in space, but nobody forces you to undock in the first place.
There are plenty of people who play this game without ever undocking, their playstyle is just radically different, more like a multiplayer-economy-simulation. If you do undock you are of course at some degree of risk of being shot at, but it is rather small if you have a rough idea of what you're doing and don't want to be shot at...
I am one of those. Don't undock, don't care.
Allendra Sormana wrote: Also you can just refuse to do pvp by not undocking if you have an active wardec, also plenty of people who play that way.
Too bad POSes exist and their disruption or destruction is more than "annoying", it's a setback of months. Also, I had plans to join the "add player owned station services" but if every punk can disrupt what I am sure will be some excruciant and very long term effort to set them up, they can bite my ass before I commit into that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
431
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:22:00 -
[213] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This cannot be, else they'd just leave everything as is, since this is the current situation: everyone can have a small POS if they want even right now. No. The current situation is that POSes are invulnerable and you can have one whether you can stomach wardecs or not. With this change, the GÇ£or notGÇ¥ part is getting removed.
I will clue you in about what happened when they removed the "or not" part of past features: they stopped doing them. Goes a grand way to CCP's plan of "POS for everyone". Why anybody with a brain would waste months of savings, standing grindings and efforts to setup something just to see some RR station game corp freely undoing all of this for 50M or whatever the cost will be?
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am talking about the NEW type of "POS for everyone" concept. GǪwhich isn't GÇ£for everyoneGÇ¥ GÇö it's GÇ£for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardecGÇ¥. Again: want the POS? You get the wardec. POSes being made more interesting doesn't make any difference here.
Here's the catch, being "for everyone" they won't be as good as the regular stuff. Maybe they'll have NPC taxes (more than the charters that is), maybe limited slots, maybe inability to work on capital BPOs. They will be *less* interesting (less effort to have one => less reward I suppose) and thus justifying having one will be even thougher.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
431
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:23:00 -
[214] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nope. No reason to run a corp alone even today. RiiiiiightGǪ that's why no-one ever does it, right? There are plenty of reasons to do it today; there will be plenty of reasons to do it after this change.
Want to bet that if anybody could setup a POS without being in a corp they would skip the additional stuff? Like training CHA based skills, having to pay for an office and generally having to torture themselves with the terribad corp UI.
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This will be exploited to hell. I can imagine actual software being made to scan all the corps (it's already done btw) and dec them 1 by 1 just to get surrender-racket ISK rolling in. GǪwhich will show up in the history and will be quite easy to research and tie together.
And once they tied it together?
Tippia wrote:Yes? So? Just because the larger organisations will monopolise the best spots (which makes sense and which already happens) doesn't mean the personal POS goes out the window.
Yeah let's all open player driven station services in Genesis, because that's where the big corps won't want to go, that will make us rich! Oh wait. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:28:00 -
[215] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Allendra Sormana wrote:Also you can just refuse to do pvp by not undocking if you have an active wardec, also plenty of people who play that way. Too bad POSes exist and their disruption or destruction is more than "annoying", it's a setback of months. Also, I had plans to join the "add player owned station services" but if every punk can disrupt what I am sure will be some excruciant and very long term effort to set them up, they can bite my ass before I commit into that. You misunderstood the intent of my quote. I just wanted to give examples of how the game can be played without being subject to unconsensual PVP (which was claimed to be unavoidable: ".. just cannot opt ouf of PVP"). I didn't say "this is what you do that can always keep you safe". It's just an example how some people do play the game without participating in any form of PVP, proving it's possible.
I usually also have a POS up for Invention, BPO research and the like, it becomes more complicated in those cases but mostly you can just pull it down for the duration of the war. This can of course be an issue, but only if you have long-time-BPO copies/research running, things like that. In my case it never is an issue as most jobs I run only take a couple of days at most. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1616
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:40:00 -
[216] - Quote
you guys write many words
I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @katrinat |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
432
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:52:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you guys write many words I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread
Would be lovely if this absurdly BAD forum did not force people to split posts in 100 fragments because it even counts how many quotes and farts you shoot.
Oh and half posts say they contain HTML (which is false) and the other half BBCode error because I DARED to use a percent sign in the same post where I put a link to something. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1618
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:07:00 -
[218] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you guys write many words I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread Would be lovely if this absurdly BAD forum did not force people to split posts in 100 fragments because it even counts how many quotes and farts you shoot. Oh and half posts say they contain HTML (which is false) and the other half BBCode error because I DARED to use a percent sign in the same post where I put a link to something.
Super Friends are working on the war dec system, not the forums
You're going to have to find the web devs somewhere to post forum issues CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @katrinat |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
433
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:17:00 -
[219] - Quote
Cool, it'd be much clearer if he had some further details about how the player driven new features "POS for everyone" and "player driven station services" (sorry if I use shortcut names) are planned to be framed in the proposed wardec system.
I.e. which kind of safety measures will be available to prevent perma-disruption?
If not, since the current similar features are not *that* hugely profitable, how do you think players will receive these new additions if they will be denied using them each other week?
Edit: I mean, in the past you did not tell smaller corps struggling in 0.0 (or unwilling to join the endless politics): "LOL EVE IS THOUGH, GTFO", but you created fantastic features like Wormholes to find a sensible medium. Or FW.
Is there a plan to make the game appreciated to a wider audience who don't necessarily enjoy or don't have the forces to avoid being racketed and generally pummeled? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Terminal Insanity
The Filthy Ones
399
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:19:00 -
[220] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread
Create an Item Exchange sell contract. Rightclick item inside the contract > Find in Contracts or Market Details !! you cant! (but you can with WTB contracts)
There was a time you could rightclick on the blue Info icon for the menu but that was removed! This sucks when you're trying to compare the contract price to other contracts/market
Reason i bug you about this is i saw you talking about fixing all the rightclick menus and you missed this one! "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP |
|
gfldex
398
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:32:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread
Thank you for noticing. The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Kira Vanachura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:56:00 -
[222] - Quote
Allendra Sormana wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: ... What you don't get instead, is that this IS an unconsensual PvP game therefore you just cannot opt out of PvP here. Indeed if you want to play EvE you have to factor in losses. ... While that may be a design intent it is just not true. Yes, you can always be shot at when in space, but nobody forces you to undock in the first place. There are plenty of people who play this game without ever undocking, their playstyle is just radically different, more like a multiplayer-economy-simulation. If you do undock you are of course at some degree of risk of being shot at, but it is rather small if you have a rough idea of what you're doing and don't want to be shot at... Also you can just refuse to do pvp by not undocking if you have an active wardec, also plenty of people who play that way. I think you have an important point here. It's unconsensual and people try to find all ways to avoid PvP. Plugging a few loopholes isn't going to make people PvP. If they don't find other ways to avoid it, they can always just stay in station. Or log off and play WoW. I guess that is not what CCP is after. No, I hope that is not what CCP is after. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
202
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:56:00 -
[223] - Quote
Amateratsu wrote: One of the biggest issues with the current war dec system is that an agressor can basicly keep a war going indefinitely.
What is needed is a system where either side can defeat the other and force the war to end, goals or targets need to be set and when 1 side achieves those goals /targets he is declared the victor and the war ends.
Why is that an issue, let alone the "biggest issue"? You can disband your corp, then you've been defeated and the war ends. CCP seems to be coming up with an idea of surrender terms, so that one side can negotiate with the other to end the war and I would assume if the terms are accepted there can't be a resumption of hostilities for a period of time. So essentially there is already and will be more ways for a war to end.
Ting von Amarr wrote:There is something i don't understand ...
When i read this thread, there is lot of people saying such things as "Kill all these carebears", "You have fun just running your POS, burn in hell etc ...".
So seem, the game is missing some PVP action, that people want to annoy other player who are NOT interested at all by PVP.
So :
1 - Do people not interested at all by PVP, and just taking fun with little industrial things with 1 or 2 friends have to stop the game ?
People not interested in PvP at all shouldn't be playing EVE, so yes they should stop playing or learn to embrace and enjoy PvP. The entire game revolves around warfare and player conflict, even if your not shooting people you're making ISK to buy machines of war, minerals to build them, you're making them, or you're selling them.
It's a Sandbox everything is linked and interconnected, or if it isn't it ought to be. It's also a Sandbox entirely based on conflict and warfare. Why would you play this game if you are "NOT interested at all by PVP"? Seriously that's just stupid.
|
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:16:00 -
[224] - Quote
Xorv wrote:[quote=Amateratsu] People not interested in PvP at all shouldn't be playing EVE, so yes they should stop playing or learn to embrace and enjoy PvP.
Sure, I'm gonna suicide my hulk to a gatekamp in Tama and jump into a Merlin PvP-ing like a pro, throwing months and years of training into waste. Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far, hence your argument is invalid - PvP should not be forced on everyone in particular in high security space. You want good pvp - go to Surajento and say hi to Snuff, or go to OMS and visit Desmans. Surely that's more fun that forcing miners into Merlins... Huh. bot those guys tend to shoot back, don't they?
Quote:The entire game revolves around warfare and player conflict, even if your not shooting people you're making ISK to buy machines of war, minerals to build them, you're making them, or you're selling them.
A lot of stuff in real life revolves around warfare, still you don't see all that many scientists from DARPA going to Iraq, do you?
Quote:It's a Sandbox everything is linked and interconnected, or if it isn't it ought to be. It's also a Sandbox entirely based on conflict and warfare. Why would you play this game if you are "NOT interested at all by PVP"?
Because the Sandbox provides so much more than just PvP. It's the most complex game, closest to rl economy that I've ever seen and that's why I love and play it.
Quote:People not interested in PvP at all shouldn't be playing EVE, so yes they should stop playing or learn to embrace and enjoy PvP. Seriously THAT's just stupid. |
Ting von Amarr
Federal Institute Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:27:00 -
[225] - Quote
Xorv wrote:It's a Sandbox everything is linked and interconnected, or if it isn't it ought to be. It's also a Sandbox entirely based on conflict and warfare. Why would you play this game if you are "NOT interested at all by PVP"? Seriously that's just stupid.
Maybe because PVP is a part of the game, not THE game. Maybe because players can just love trading, crafting, researching ? Maybe CCp Diagoras can tell us the % of accounts who don't get 1 killmail ? Just for fun ?
Even the guy from CCP said at fanfest he knows the new system is completely unbalanced, but no problem for him, it is unbalanced, so it's just a "****" he wants to commit in prod instead of taking more time to think to a better system, as seem urgent ... It's in inferno patch ... No time to rethink and recode alll this.
Do someone know if CSM is behind that ? |
Liam Mirren
352
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:47:00 -
[226] - Quote
There's a difference between disliking PVP while focussing on PVE/production and outright refusing to admit/realise that this game is built around PVP, trying to wish it away.
If you mine you can get ganked, would you fit more tank the chance of being ganked is lower but you lose yield. That's a choice, you can choose to tank more and be safer OR you can choose to max yield and run more risk, either way it's one's own choice, don't make the lazy choice and then whine when something goes wrong.
If you're in a pve/production corp you can choose to put in a tiny bit of time&effort to actually get some teamwork going and learn/talk/prepare for a possible attack or wardec, you can also choose to have a bunch of folks in your corp that are more PVP minded. That way you have a more alround corp which will probably have more interaction going while at the same time being better prepared for any problems, but this ofcourse takes effort, thought and preparation. If you CHOOSE to be a one sided corp full of people who refuse to admit that there's bad guys out there and thus cba to prepare for it, you choose to become victims.
You can choose to ignore all that, do your own little thing in your own little universe while not doing something about it and just put your fingers in your ears going "lalalala" when someone states that this game has pvp, and then whine when it knocks on your door. If you CHOOSE to be unprepared, to not pay attention and to stay uninformed then you CHOOSE to get in trouble a lot.
If you want peace, prepare for war. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Masral Kabo
Peregrine Guard
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:52:00 -
[227] - Quote
So clearly you, Vahrokha, are upset you wont be able to keep your zero risk Jita POSs without interacting with other eve players.
Are you of the opinion that alliance jumping to avoid wardecs is a reasonable tactic?
All the little complaints you have about the new system can be tweaked after launch if they are genuinely a problem. Stop being so melodramatic.
The only real problem i see atm is the pricing of wardecs. If the cost was proportional to the difference in active player numbers between corps then:
- large corps would be less inclined to harass small corps - small/1 man corps would be less likely to grief medium/large industry/noob corps in a similar way to afk cloakers in 0.0.
It should not be cheap for a one man corp to affect the gameplay of numerous noobs/industrialists. When i started the game i joined multiple noob corps which were harassed and subsequently disbanded because of 1 man corp wardecs. I cant remember ever being wardecced by a similar sized pvp corp. Probably because we weren't worth their time. |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:16:00 -
[228] - Quote
You are absolutely right. The main problem with the proposed changes is that it will make griefers turn to even easier targets (small indi corps) and boast with their tears on forums and (eventually) on Fanfest (puke icon). However that is hardly the only problem.
Now if they make corp size differences (deccer vs the decced) matter in war costs, fix corp hopping (whatever that ccp guy said, risks for deccers are un-existent as long as they can go back to npc corps during wartime) and stick folks who neut-RR an individual war flag for the duration of the conflict... well then it could be called a major improvement.
However, atm this is crap in it's purest form. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
202
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:35:00 -
[229] - Quote
Victoria Sefica wrote:Quote:The entire game revolves around warfare and player conflict, even if your not shooting people you're making ISK to buy machines of war, minerals to build them, you're making them, or you're selling them.
A lot of stuff in real life revolves around warfare, still you don't see all that many scientists from DARPA going to Iraq, do you?
If we must talk 'real life' Iranian scientists have been assassinated in recent years, civilian transport drivers were killed in Iraq, ultimately when war reaches your home country anyone and everyone can become target and a victim, but most certainly scientists and manufacturers. Maybe you should spend more time understanding what has and is happening in the real world before using it as an example for the virtual world of EVE.
Whether you like it or not, in EVE you are a military entity, your not a civilian scientist. I don't know what it is with people like you but your always making analogies with EVE characters to things like real life scientists, pizza delivery boys, and burger flippers to justify your failed arguments. It's nonsense
Victoria Sefica wrote:Quote:It's a Sandbox everything is linked and interconnected, or if it isn't it ought to be. It's also a Sandbox entirely based on conflict and warfare. Why would you play this game if you are "NOT interested at all by PVP"?
Because the Sandbox provides so much more than just PvP. It's the most complex game, closest to rl economy that I've ever seen and that's why I love and play it.
Right a sandbox economy that is entirely driven by conflict and warfare. Point me to the part of EVE's economy that has nothing to do with warfare and blowing stuff up? |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:45:00 -
[230] - Quote
Xorv wrote: yadda-yadda-yadda
Coherence, you have none.
|
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you guys write many words I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread Awesome. Then perhaps they can fix this idea before it goes live.
The whole thing of unlimited allies for the defender destroys the war dec system. I'm sure you envisioned an idea of well-paid merc contracts and a bustling war-related economy. But that's not the way EvE works. Players will do this for free. I will do this for free! I get free wars. Sure there might be Awesome Mercs(tm) who still require payment, which is great for them. And if a defender opts for that route it's no problem. Because I (and everybody like me) can still be added into the war at our low low free cost. Cuz it's... Unlimited Allies! If you start a war you are completely screwed. You are gonna get blobbed to death. Which will quickly mean, no hi-sec wars. Honestly how can you not see that this will happen? Are you that out of touch with EvE-player mentality?
Not to mention there is still zero reason for nullsec or lowsec entities to pay for a war. Really what would they gain from it?
We had faith in you. You were supposed to fix this shiite, not destroy it.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:15:00 -
[232] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Point me to the part of EVE's economy that has nothing to do with warfare and blowing stuff up? P.I. resources > Fuel Blocks > Research POS > Fuel Block BPCs... regardless of whether or not there is PvP that cycle could continue indefinitely.
But yeah 99% of EvE economy is based on warfare and stuff getting blown up.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
434
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:19:00 -
[233] - Quote
Masral Kabo wrote:So clearly you, Vahrokha, are upset you wont be able to keep your zero risk Jita POSs without interacting with other eve players.
Are you of the opinion that alliance jumping to avoid wardecs is a reasonable tactic?
All the little complaints you have about the new system can be tweaked after launch if they are genuinely a problem. Stop being so melodramatic.
The only real problem i see atm is the pricing of wardecs. If the cost was proportional to the difference in active player numbers between corps then:
Let me put down a little drawing for you.
In a perfect universe (which I enjoyed when I was a new player and I could play 3-4 hours a day in a PvP corp) you are a though guy with team work friendly corpies.
You get decced? COOL we had up to 7 decs at the same time, that meant more targets! You get a POS reinforced? Cool we assembled a dozen of carriers and much more and pew pew (I was way too new so I had to camp a gate in a puny BC with other guys). You get a mining op? Cool, 10 Hulks in 0.3 sec constantly guarded for the full duration by corpies.
Then one day it ends. You suddenly have a life and are down to 1h gameplay every other day. Yet you still love EvE.
So you end up alone in hi sec or in some crappy corp, like probably 50%+ of the whole playerbase. Nobody wants a 1h every other day player, certainly not give him corp POS access (tried joining such corp on my industry characters, 2 times out of 2 a guy ended up stealing stuff, because POS access rights management is a sad joke). At this point you setup a POS by yourself. You grind standings, buy the required stuff and so on. No mercs want to defend it, used to find "retainer" deals but then it fell out of general acceptance. Some unknown corp with a skull in their logo wardecs you. You know they will just wait for you to be offline to reinforce the POS. They want 500M to clear the wardec.
You pay them. Few days later another unknown corp with another skull magically re-wardecs you. Is it alts? Is it just news that a dumb guy actually pays ransoms? Does not matter. They also want 500M. Just a few hits like this and you invested 20B in BPOs, researched them for 1 year of pure cost zero income and are still losing 500M a ransom. GREAT deal! The "OH YOU HAVE CONSEQUENCES IN EVE" for the wardeccers? 20M? AH AH AH! That's though on them, eh?
Or
You tell them to GTFO and tear your POS down. You just lost 200M in POS fuel and 20 days in research on every BPO (it gets completely cancelled when you rip labs off), which means about further 80M damage per slot (there can be dozens of slots in a POS).
Let's see the CONSEQUENCES for the wardeccers? 20M, once again they really had to sweat blood, I mean, they had to risk their neck with the downsides of their wardec, uh?
Or
For some miracle you find mercs to fight for you. They ask 1B and do NOT guarantee the POS will not be destroyed, just that they will fight vs the wardeccers.
Let's see the CONSEQUENCES for the wardeccers? 20M and they get the pew pew they were after. Once again, this looks clearly balanced.
It's is clearly surprising how people just love to be butt drilled without vaseline like this. I mean, it's totally a 50% vs 50% CONSEQUEEEEENCES deal between deccers and their target, something both have to sit down and precisely calculate the pro vs cons. Or not.
But hey, if you love EvE but can't hard core it any more, you should indeed GTFO and GBWoW. That's player retention 101. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Allendra Sormana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:29:00 -
[234] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Not to mention there is still zero reason for nullsec or lowsec entities to pay for a war. Really what would they gain from it? Both obviously get the obvious, which is that they can also shoot their enemies in high-sec. Admittedly that matters less for 0.0 as nobody would go shopping with their main. For lowsec this shopping in high might also not be an option in the first place if the sec status is too low to do so in the first place. Lowsec gets the added bonus of shooting enemies (or lets just call them tagets) without getting a sec hit every time. Also a thing that might matter to some more than others. All in all this isn't a huge thing to get for a (potentially) big wardec price, but wars are intended mechanics for empire space, not 0.0. If sec status doesn't matter to some lowsec-dwellers why would they declare a war?
Just to make this clear again, even though I think the changes can be improved upon (how can be found in my posts, obviously) I'm generally in favor of them. Preferably price should be defined by the member difference of the corps and somewhat scaled by the size of both, but those are things that I would consider "tuning the system". What is an absolute requirement for this to have any meaningful effect at all is to stop corp hopping together with the changes. There is no alternative! Otherwise any changes to the war system become meaningless, just like the peace treaties that we will be able to negotiate, like everything else around the war system in general. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
288
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:44:00 -
[235] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The whole idea the devs presented was that you paid for gaining access to targets. More targets = easier to find = moar ISKies!! Few targets = harder to find = less ISKGǪ the problem is, of course, that that's just nonsense. It's not difficult in the slightest to find a small group, and that this pricing structure just means large alliances get an extra layer of security for free that their sheer numbers alone should provide. Making it a relative-size or ratio scheme, it would rather (admittedly only ever so slightly, and with the aforementioned caveats) incentivise something that could GÇö at a distance GÇö be considered approaching a GÇ£fairGÇ¥ fight. The caveats also open up for some fun player-run cottage industries, and that's always a bonus in my view. I can't stress enough how much I agree with this paragraph. It's a massive gap in logic to claim that any and all war declarations are just "by the pound" shopping sprees for war targets. Some are, sure. But it's ridiculous to claim that all are. There are plenty of reasons to wage war that don't include being bored and simply needing something to shoot.
There's absolutely no rational explanation for why a small corporation declaring upon a bigger one should be penalized for taking on increased risk. How can anyone justify a 20-man corporation paying less to declare war on a 5-man corporation than a 150-man corporation, considering that the latter has significant numerical superiority?
Dutarro wrote:That's exactly my opinion. Member count will be gamed just as war dec count is already (a.k.a. "dec shielding"). An inverse member count scale is interesting, but can also be gamed. For example, 100-member corp breaks into five 20-member corps and opens a chat channel ... now you need five decs that are five times as costly to attack them all. Tying war cost to corp income potential imposes a risk/reward tradeoff that is much harder to game. It's true that this will make those newly-made smaller corporations more expensive to declare upon. However, the original aggressor now has the ability to cherry-pick which specific offshoots it wants to go after. On top of that, implementing floors and ceilings for war fees would help mitigate this strategy.
Dutarro wrote:Also, I disagree with the premise that a war dec from a small aggressor is less damaging than a large aggressor. When a 2-man PvP corp decs a 100-man indy corp, all 100 defenders have to adjust their game play but the aggressor does not. It's sort of the high sec equivalent of the afk cloaker. At least when a larger corp decs you, there's an enemy online and possibly in space for you to go fight with. I'm not saying that the 2-man dec vs. 100 should be forbidden, but it shouldn't be cheap either. This is a logical fallacy. The 100-man corporation has a significant numerical advantage when being at war with a 2-man corporation; a benefit it doesn't have when being at war with a corporation of similar size. It's absurd to claim that 2 people are more dangerous than 100, absolutely absurd. If you guys can't defeat someone with 50:1 odds, then frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Victoria Sefica wrote:A lot of stuff in real life revolves around warfare, still you don't see all that many scientists from DARPA going to Iraq, do you? These scientists belong to an organization (nation) which maintains significant military assets to protect its industrial base. On the other hand, the bears pleading for absolute safety in high-sec demand that they be allowed the option of conducting industrial activities without having to worry about defending themselves at all. No one is stopping industrial corporations from recruiting pvp pilots, and then compensating them for their services with the profits from the increased industrial capacity their protection affords them.
Liam Mirren wrote:There's a difference between disliking PVP while focussing on PVE/production and outright refusing to admit/realise that this game is built around PVP, trying to wish it away. Agree with everything you said, but expecially that.
Also, lol at the guy who thinks that everyone should be entitled to have a POS within 3 jumps of Jita, and be able to have limitless opportunities for the most profitable ventures without being exposed to any kind of risk. Laughable.
|
Jas Dor
Republic University Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 03:36:00 -
[236] - Quote
Hum haven't gone through all this mess. The issues though seem to be:
1. Defender corp can bring in allies but not aggressor corp. Solution: let the defender corp bring in one ally. After that if the defender brings in an ally the aggressor also gets to bring one in. If implemented this way a chance exists for things to spiral out of control with attacker and defender eventually bringing half of high sec into the fight. I have trouble seeing how this is a bad thing.
2. This might lead to more deccing of small corps. There are actually two problems here.
a. Atomizing of the one man research corps that are the backbone of the T2 economy and; b. At present POS mechanics are so defective that without a human gunner present any size high sec POS with any level of hardening, ECM and Guns can be killed by 10 toons if they know how to do it. If POSes suddenly have a problem inflation is going to go through the roof. |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:21:00 -
[237] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Ting von Amarr wrote:"I'm a sheep, come to shave me !"
(English is not my native langage, sorry). We know. :) But it's cool. EVE is multi-national. And you speak English far far better than I can speak your native tongue.
Poetic, your nice side is showing . get with the program and HTFU
|
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:30:00 -
[238] - Quote
Xorv wrote:
Whether you like it or not, in EVE you are a military entity, your not a civilian scientist. I don't know what it is with people like you but your always making analogies with EVE characters to things like real life scientists, pizza delivery boys, and burger flippers to justify your failed arguments. It's nonsense
See, I thought the whole point of an MMORPG is that someone who is not normally a bad ass can role play as a bad ass. So, if someone is role playing as a pizza delivery boy, what does that make them in real life? A little girl with a lemonade stand?
Not to mention the fact that all the scientists and pizza delivery boys and lemonade stand girls in the real world are protected by men and women with guns. Why should Eve - a cold, harsh, dark, universe - be any kinder and gentler? |
Masral Kabo
Peregrine Guard
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:33:00 -
[239] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Let me put down a little drawing for you.
I dont see a problem with this picture. People like yourself would drop out of POS related activities resulting in a drop in supply (of whatever you're producing) increasing profits for people who are willing to put in the extra effort.
I want a ratting Titan but i cant be arsed joining/creating an alliance and putting in the required work for it so... i dont get a Titan. Likewise, if you aren't willing to do whats required to run a successful POS operation after the new mechanics are implemented then you cant have it. There are plenty of other things you can do. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
523
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:44:00 -
[240] - Quote
The main thing I have to say is this ...
if you don't have a reason to undock, these war mechanics will mean nothing other than less griefing potentially, and more chances for mercs to stop griefers (this doesn't really get exciting. More money for mercs. But griefers resort to docking until war is over.)
Without a reason to undock your ship, this really won't be INFERNO!!!
Like I said, I'd like to see actual objectives, or areas of control designated.
I'd rather see war decs that occupy a section of space as an option.
i.e. "I declare war upon you in the Sinq Laison Region" - I can shoot you on sight in Sinq Laison, and my terms are that you leave the Sinq Laison region, close your office, and so on.
To me, that makes people want to undock. It makes people say, "Well ****, if I don't fight I WILL lose something."
I understand not everyone wants to get dragged into this stuff, but this would be substantial in a way at least. Miners would get into miner wars over asteroids, and other good stuff. The issue is that war decs are reserved for griefers because that's all the system is remotely good for. If you made it utilitarian for ACTUAL war results, rather than just a racketeering system...
"Hey, you. 100m a week or we'll war dec you."
Also, this will most likely cause mega high sec alliances to form. It won't protect them from war decs, but psychologically they'll think to themselves "hey, I can make these people pay a **** load to war dec me at least!" These high sec mega alliances would probably potentially actually try and go beyond high sec eventually, since they have a reason to form under the same flag, maybe this will propel them out of High Sec.
That'd be refreshing at least.
The war dec system will accomplish 2 major things we don't see today :
Huge high sec alliances in member counts.
Increases in the small merc industry to provide for "griefer aversion" from one or two man corps that forces griefer corps to dock up from merc protection. Not exciting, but at least profitable. Increase in competition will lower costs of high sec merc services.
And of course :
Goons scamming for mercenary services to high sec corps.
Other than that. I want to see objectives and results!
Make people undock or lose something! I don't see this really being Inferno otherwise.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
290
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:55:00 -
[241] - Quote
Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take out the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu." |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
290
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 05:03:00 -
[242] - Quote
You know what I'd like to see implemented into this new system?
A "protection" element for the UI. Corp A wardecs corp B and sets surrender terms on an X amount of ISK per week. If the terms are accepted, the war is nullified, and can't be re-declared as long as the protection fees are paid. If another corporation wardecs corp B, then corp A is automatically forced into the ally role, and the protection fee queue gets placed on hold, while the ability of corp A to wardec corp B again doesn't get put on hold. On top of that, corp A is forced to remain in the ally role until the new aggressors are forced to retreat, or corp A disbands.
And make fee options really extensive, like ISK, a portion of standings with NPC corporations and factions, gained security status, etc etc.
Now that's actions and consequences for ya. |
Amateratsu
The Pegasus Project
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 05:52:00 -
[243] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Amateratsu wrote: One of the biggest issues with the current war dec system is that an agressor can basicly keep a war going indefinitely.
What is needed is a system where either side can defeat the other and force the war to end, goals or targets need to be set and when 1 side achieves those goals /targets he is declared the victor and the war ends.
Why is that an issue, let alone the "biggest issue"? You can disband your corp, then you've been defeated and the war ends. CCP seems to be coming up with an idea of surrender terms, so that one side can negotiate with the other to end the war and I would assume if the terms are accepted there can't be a resumption of hostilities for a period of time. So essentially there is already and will be more ways for a war to end.
Its an issue for the very reasons you've just stated, forcing the defending corp to dispand or give up all their assets in payment for surrender terms. which is why the system gets abused so much to attack corps / players who have no way of defending themselfs against an attacker.
Then you cry on the forums when the defender finds ways to avoid / get out of a wars using dec shield and so on.
Wars need to be a two way engagement where either side (both the defending corp and the attacking corp) can defeat the other side and force the war to a close. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 06:30:00 -
[244] - Quote
Amateratsu wrote: Its an issue for the very reasons you've just stated, forcing the defending corp to dispand or give up all their assets in payment for surrender terms. which is why the system gets abused so much to attack corps / players who have no way of defending themselfs against an attacker.
Then you cry on the forums when the defender finds ways to avoid / get out of a wars using dec shield and so on.
Wars need to be a two way engagement where either side (both the defending corp and the attacking corp) can defeat the other side and force the war to a close.
Under the new proposed system I don't think attackers can withdraw from the war if the defenders don't wish them to do so, plus the defenders can bring in an ally to help fight at no additional wardec cost. So, in fact things are very much stacked in favor of the defender if they're prepared for the eventuality of war.
The tools are all there for wardeced corps to hit back at an aggressor and make them regret declaring war. The problem is some people are basically looking for a PvP flag they can switch off and for the game mechanics to automatically defend them securing their safety, and that really doesn't belong in a game like EVE. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
666
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 06:33:00 -
[245] - Quote
Various mercenaries and hisec experts have expressed concern with the current model for war fees increasing based on the number of members in the defending corporation.
Fears of the formation of a kind of hisec super-alliance, joinable by every player who does not want to be vulnerable to wars were expressed. Such an entity could conceivably exceed 15,000 members without great difficulty; this would incur war fees of many billions of isk.
I believe that the scaling of cost for each additional member of the defending corporation should decrease as the number of members increases, by 2,000 ISK per member until the cost for each additional member is 80,000 ISK. This would mean:
A war against a 1 man corp costs 20 million ISK (0 ISK extra) A war against a 22 man corp costs ~30 million ISK (10M ISK extra) A war against a 45 man corp costs ~40 million ISK (20M ISK extra) A war against a 100 man corp costs ~60 million ISK (40M ISK extra) A war against a 200 man corp costs ~80 million ISK (60M ISK extra) A war against a 450 man corp costs ~100 million ISK (80M ISK extra)
and every thousand members after that only incur 80 million ISK in charges, rather than half a billion isk.
These parameters can be adjusted (copy this spreadsheet to play around with it and see how that would work), but I very much like the idea of a curved scale and think it could prevent a lot of unnecessary drama and war avoidance in hisec. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Iggep
Crestlighter Heavy Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 06:53:00 -
[246] - Quote
............. you have got to be kidding me.... I typed a huge reply to a specific post and not one word posted...... meh!!! http://www.iggepsrealm.com - the ramblings of a spaceship driving techophile |
Iggep
Crestlighter Heavy Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:00:00 -
[247] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Amateratsu wrote: Its an issue for the very reasons you've just stated, forcing the defending corp to dispand or give up all their assets in payment for surrender terms. which is why the system gets abused so much to attack corps / players who have no way of defending themselfs against an attacker.
Then you cry on the forums when the defender finds ways to avoid / get out of a wars using dec shield and so on.
Wars need to be a two way engagement where either side (both the defending corp and the attacking corp) can defeat the other side and force the war to a close.
Under the new proposed system I don't think attackers can withdraw from the war if the defenders don't wish them to do so, plus the defenders can bring in an ally to help fight at no additional wardec cost. So, in fact things are very much stacked in favor of the defender if they're prepared for the eventuality of war. The tools are all there for wardeced corps to hit back at an aggressor and make them regret declaring war. The problem is some people are basically looking for a PvP flag they can switch off and for the game mechanics to automatically defend them securing their safety, and that really doesn't belong in a game like EVE.
That is entirely "on paper". Perhaps that is the case with mid to large corps, but certainly not for the random small corp. Is a 4-5 man indy corp going to be able to afford mercs? The reality is that small corps are going to rip down any POS they might have and will likely disband. People who do not want to be subjected to harassment will hug NPC corps and we have quite enough of that now. PVP corps that want to fight aren't going to be able to fight those small indy corps they so desperately want to fight now... those corps will just disappear and the players will either play in NPC corps or will leave EVE all together. If they wanted to PVP they would have been doing it already. Mid to Larger corps are a different matter and I'm not so concerned about them. Its the smaller corps I have great concerns about in this "revamp". http://www.iggepsrealm.com - the ramblings of a spaceship driving techophile |
Iggep
Crestlighter Heavy Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:07:00 -
[248] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu."
I think the point you might be missing in all this is that you do not play in a vacuum. You seem to want everyone to accept the game on your terms. I'm not saying I disagree with your terms, or that I don't. In the end what CCP needs to be painfully aware of is that there will be real consequences for them (and for you) if they muck this up and make things too painful for those who don't really see the same value in PVP as you seem to.
The fact is there is plenty of PVP to be had. People who are interested in PVP just aren't seeking it out for whatever reason. Risk for others has (or should have) nothing to do with it, what so ever. http://www.iggepsrealm.com - the ramblings of a spaceship driving techophile |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:13:00 -
[249] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: Fears of the formation of a kind of hisec super-alliance, joinable by every player who does not want to be vulnerable to wars were expressed. Such an entity could conceivably exceed 15,000 members without great difficulty; this would incur war fees of many billions of isk.
This should be a concern of all independent minded, small, medium sized High Sec Industrial corporations, and players as well. For under this system a disproportional amount of hostilities will fall on them while large Null Sec power block affiliated players and those belonging to organizations like EVE Uni will be largely immune from Wardecs and thus have a competitive advantage. While numbers and organization should give added advantage it shouldn't offer such huge one as near immunity to Wardecs.
Your solution seems a good reasonable one Widdershins. I still think one based on the numbers in the Wardecers corp could also work. Either would be preferable to the current one. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
291
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:21:00 -
[250] - Quote
Iggep wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu." I think the point you might be missing in all this is that you do not play in a vacuum. You seem to want everyone to accept the game on your terms. I'm not saying I disagree with your terms, or that I don't. In the end what CCP needs to be painfully aware of is that there will be real consequences for them (and for you) if they muck this up and make things too painful for those who don't really see the same value in PVP as you seem to. The fact is there is plenty of PVP to be had. People who are interested in PVP just aren't seeking it out for whatever reason. Risk for others has (or should have) nothing to do with it, what so ever. If they don't like my terms, they're more than welcome to attempt to force their own terms on me. Heck, they don't even need to be interested in pvp to do so; just hire people to stamp down on the aggressors by employing the might of their industrial profits. But the thing is, they don't want to do that either. In these peoples' minds, money exists for the sole purpose of padding their own wallets. They feel that they shouldn't have to spend anything to increase their own opportunities. They feel that they shouldn't have to accept risks in order to reap increased rewards. And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf.
The problem isn't that these people don't want to kill other people with violence; the problem is that they want gratification in a competitive environment without putting anything on the line. |
|
Iggep
Crestlighter Heavy Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:55:00 -
[251] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Iggep wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu." I think the point you might be missing in all this is that you do not play in a vacuum. You seem to want everyone to accept the game on your terms. I'm not saying I disagree with your terms, or that I don't. In the end what CCP needs to be painfully aware of is that there will be real consequences for them (and for you) if they muck this up and make things too painful for those who don't really see the same value in PVP as you seem to. The fact is there is plenty of PVP to be had. People who are interested in PVP just aren't seeking it out for whatever reason. Risk for others has (or should have) nothing to do with it, what so ever. If they don't like my terms, they're more than welcome to attempt to force their own terms on me. Heck, they don't even need to be interested in pvp to do so; just hire people to stamp down on the aggressors by employing the might of their industrial profits. But the thing is, they don't want to do that either. In these peoples' minds, money exists for the sole purpose of padding their own wallets. They feel that they shouldn't have to spend anything to increase their own opportunities. They feel that they shouldn't have to accept risks in order to reap increased rewards. And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf. The problem isn't that these people don't want to kill other people with violence; the problem is that they want gratification in a competitive environment without putting anything on the line.
Whining goes on from both sides. I have a rather limited perspective in EVE, whereas perhaps you do not. Or do, I don't know. What I do know is that I've never been one personally to purposefully ruin the game play of someone else. its just not the type of person I am. Others playing EVE are that type of person, and while I'm quite sure they could care less what I feel about that, I'm quite sure those kinds of people end up getting what they deserve in other ways.
I do not disagree with you that risk needs to remain in high sec. I do disagree with any system that does not ensure small random players are not preyed upon as I'm sure you know happens all to often now. "PVP" corps wardeccing small indy corps isn't about PVP. Its about harassment, and I don't see that as a legitimate play style. http://www.iggepsrealm.com - the ramblings of a spaceship driving techophile |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:21:00 -
[252] - Quote
Iggep wrote:What I do know is that I've never been one personally to purposefully ruin the game play of someone else. its just not the type of person I am. Others playing EVE are that type of person, and while I'm quite sure they could care less what I feel about that, I'm quite sure those kinds of people end up getting what they deserve in other ways. I'm curious, do you consider non-consensual PvP in a game that both fosters non-con PvP and touts it as a selling point to be ruining the game play of somebody else?
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
270
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:49:00 -
[253] - Quote
Iggep wrote:I do not disagree with you that risk needs to remain in high sec. I do disagree with any system that does not ensure small random players are not preyed upon as I'm sure you know happens all to often now. "PVP" corps wardeccing small indy corps isn't about PVP. Its about harassment, and I don't see that as a legitimate play style.
It is very simple really. Small random players (sic) should stay in a NPC corp until they feel they want to take their chances to increase their profits by joining or starting a small player corp and when they do they have obligations to start defending their property. That is the risk and price they have to pay to reep the benefits from being in a player corp. It was very clear in the Fanfest presentation and it all makes perfect sense.
The rest was eloquently put by Destiny:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:In these peoples' minds, money exists for the sole purpose of padding their own wallets. They feel that they shouldn't have to spend anything to increase their own opportunities. They feel that they shouldn't have to accept risks in order to reap increased rewards. And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:13:00 -
[254] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu."
As I said before, you assume that because I write something that must necessarily apply to me and certainly be against you.
I have done my stuff for years and have been -9 sec so keep your carebear adjectives for somebody else.
I just don't find the new system to go together with their "POS "lite" for everyone" plans nor the player supplied station services (if they rely on a POS or similar).
I have yet to see a decent explanation why Average Joe (the obvious target of the feature) would want to setup a restricted POS Lite, knowing he'll just get racketed or nuked to oblivion with no recourse.
Try tell me. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:25:00 -
[255] - Quote
Lexmana wrote: It is very simple really. Small random players (sic) should stay in a NPC corp until they feel they want to take their chances to increase their profits by joining or starting a small player corp and when they do they have obligations to start defending their property. That is the risk and price they have to pay to reep the benefits from being in a player corp. It was very clear in the Fanfest presentation and it all makes perfect sense.
It was very clear they wanted to spread the usage of certain new and old features. Not sure how well it'll go with a "hey new player you pay $15 but not to play. You pay it just to spin your rookie ship until you feel like joining the though guys with a bat". It will attract new players as much as Incarna did.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf.
The changes are going in because of YOUR whining. The others outsmarted the system and invented dec shields and the hi sec PvP CAREBEARS (notice how they are the SAME and lame substance of the non PvP CAREBEARS, i.e. stay tight in hi sec like a pu$sy) went to cry on the forums.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: The problem isn't that these people don't want to kill other people with violence; the problem is that they want gratification in a competitive environment without putting anything on the line.
Instant gratification is to create a catalyst alt and endure such though 2M ship purchase.
Not having invested 20B in BPOs, spent 1 year researching them, then more money in structures and continuous logistics.
Somebody thinks in reverse. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:28:00 -
[256] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah, for every POS you take down because we rub your ass raw, we're going to put up our own to take advantage of the market externality you created. And we're going to defend it properly so that no one else will be to one-up us without a massive effort that will cost them more than it will cost us.
So yeah, the system works fine. You simply want something for nothing, and aren't getting it. What do all the carebears say when they interpret a game play mechanic change as something that will finally take the 'v' out of "pvp" and think that the people who spent a decade extracting money from others won't adapt to it? Oh, right, "htfu." As I said before, you assume that because I write something that must necessarily apply to me and certainly be against you. I have done my stuff for years and have been -9 sec so keep your carebear adjectives for somebody else. I just don't find the new system to go together with their "POS "lite" for everyone" plans nor the player supplied station services (if they rely on a POS or similar). I have yet to see a decent explanation why Average Joe (the obvious target of the feature) would want to setup a restricted POS Lite, knowing he'll just get racketed or nuked to oblivion with no recourse. Try tell me. 1. I meant "you" in a general way, as is common when making an argument. Sometimes things get lost in translation because forums don't exactly conduct body language and intonation. So by "your POS" I meant the POSes of people who want to run them without risk.
2. It's a POS "lite," which entails two things: it's going to be easier to manage, and it will be cheaper to run. Those two things are offset by increased weakness to attack. I think it's a rational tradeoff. As is, it's already possible to set up a high-sec POS in such a manner that it would take an extremely large amount of people to take it down with a reasonable amount of effort. It's possible to defend a POS so well, that it's simply not cost-efficient to attack it. In fact, as someone actively involved in the mercenary industry, I can tell you for a fact that live high-sec POS sieges are pretty goddamn rare. Most outfits charge billions to siege a large defended tower. Even an abandoned POS siege would have a price tag of a few hundred million.
But yeah, you know what? If we see an undefended tower with sixteen labs, a bunch of large assembly arrays, and no guns or hardeners, that thing is going down. For free.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf.
The changes are going in because of YOUR whining. The others outsmarted the system and invented dec shields and the hi sec PvP CAREBEARS (notice how they are the SAME and lame substance of the non PvP CAREBEARS, i.e. stay tight in hi sec like a pu$sy) went to cry on the forums. Uh, just so you know, dec shield was both invented by "griefers," and is being run by someone who is the exact opposite of a carebear. It was done by the "griefer" community to preempt the high-sec safety bears, and is currently being run in such a manner that its effects are having an overwhelming impact on CCP's perception of high-sec war. Which is why the announced war changes are so damn good (except the pricing structure, but we're working on that). |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:43:00 -
[257] - Quote
Quote:The problem isn't that these people don't want to kill other people with violence; the problem is that they want gratification in a competitive environment without putting anything on the line.
Have you actually tried competing in the market so that you know that industrials (again, I am emphasizing small newbie/starter corps which will become target of choice for grievers post patch) are printing Isk in their PoSes? Because, I can tell you, although me and few buddies make decent ISK with our industrial operation, I can make much more, with much less commitment with PvE char. I do industry because I like the concept (and I'm a slight masochist, anyone has to be to manage a pos with current UI) not because it's making me filthy rich. There is a risk to that side of Eve as it is, without PvP being forced onto it.
Furthermore, if you think its' such a lucrative area w/o risks, why don't you try it for yourself. I'm sure that your obvious knowledge on the subject of supply/demand dynamics, market speculation and play and what not will have your PvP char flying nothing but Maccariels in no time. You guys are so narrow minded, since you fail to see that war can be fought on so many levels and not necessarily by shooting one in the face. Furthermore, as a newb PvP you have so many ways to control the extent of risk you are put to - you can do 1v1 can flips in hisec, join RvB and then when you're ready you can go to low/nullsec and fight the good fights. However as a starter industrialist there is no way you can commit do some things ( t2 production in particular) w/o PoS and there is no way in hell anyone will want to bring up a small pos in hisec after this, since it will be like throwing a piece of meat to hungry dogs, hoping they won't notice it. Unless there is a radical, and I mean radical change in availability of public copy/research slots, this will be the end of small industrial corps. I bet that will have a really positive impact on t2 market as well, as all oligopolies have.
To re-iterate what the CCP guy said during his presentation - hi-sec wars atm are fought for two reasons only: griefing and consensual PvP (read: RvB). Whomever says that the proposed changes are going to make any difference in that is either very naive or a griefer loathing at the newly opened world of easy pickings. Hopefully they will make some changes to the whole system before s*** hits the fan. Oh, and Eve-U, good job on getting your costs for Dec Shielding cut down by CCP, while at the same time you make yourself the corp of choice for desperate newbie looking for a safe haven. Good job indeed. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:51:00 -
[258] - Quote
Uh, no, I never brought POSes into the conversation; Vaerah did. All I said was that risk should apply to POS-related industrial activities like everything else. Then I told him/her that he/she is trying to find a problem where a problem doesn't exist. I will say it again: a properly-managed POS makes a takedown attempt extremely inefficient (and boring to boot). Now, if you want to perform your POS activities from a small, undefended tower, that's your choice. Just don't cry when it doesn't last a week. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:58:00 -
[259] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: 2. It's a POS "lite," which entails two things: it's going to be easier to manage, and it will be cheaper to run. Those two things are offset by increased weakness to attack. I think it's a rational tradeoff.
It's rational only if they allow research to resume after the war ends. Else even if the POS is cheaper and easier, you still get 80M damage per slot and up to 33 lost days per BPO, which is the real damage.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And so, whenever they get put in a vice, instead of using whatever play styles and competencies they possess in order to win conflicts, they whine to the developers and demand changes be made to the game on their behalf.
Uh, just so you know, dec shield was both invented by "griefers," and is being run by someone who is the exact opposite of a carebear. It was done by the "griefer" community to preempt the high-sec safety bears, and is currently being run in such a manner that its effects are having an overwhelming impact on CCP's perception of high-sec war. Which is why the announced war changes are so damn good (except the pricing structure, but we're working on that).[/quote]
So, not only it was "griefers" (you call them griefers BTW, I don't) who went to the forums but also exploited the system to ransom CCP into changing it? Good stuff
BTW an interesting anecdote. Today a guy got his Hulk popped by a now "just one in a million" guy using alt at belt to warp in -10 sec alts from cloaky Orca, do the gank, go back to Orca, circumvent Concord.
They Hulk guy promptly took off with a Recon to go take vengeance and...
... the other guy immediately moved all to NPC corp, docked in station some of his -10 alts, the Orca is neatly somewhere but can't be scanned.
That's the "PvP thoughness" and "act with consquences" they have to deal with. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:06:00 -
[260] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: ... the other guy immediately moved all to NPC corp, docked in station some of his -10 alts, the Orca is neatly somewhere but can't be scanned. That's the "PvP thoughness" and "act with consquences" they have to deal with.
Oh well at least corp hopping is being dealt... oh, wait... it's not on the priority list , "we want to make it more hardcore" |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:10:00 -
[261] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 2. It's a POS "lite," which entails two things: it's going to be easier to manage, and it will be cheaper to run. Those two things are offset by increased weakness to attack. I think it's a rational tradeoff.
It's rational only if they allow research to resume after the war ends. Else even if the POS is cheaper and easier, you still get 80M damage per slot and up to 33 lost days per BPO, which is the real damage. Well, it is kind of unwise to set 25-day jobs then, don't you think? Do it a few levels at a time, one for the really high-end prints. Some print types should probably have their timers lowered a bit, that I would have no problem agreeing with. This is still a risk/reward situation, however. You can choose to take a bigger risk and set a longer job, and reap a greater reward in the form of having to devote less time to lab management. Or you might not.
PS: yes I called them "griefers," but I put the word in quotation marks. "Carebears" aren't really carebears either; we simply need to utilize labels for the sake of simplicity in our conversations. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:13:00 -
[262] - Quote
Victoria Sefica wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: ... the other guy immediately moved all to NPC corp, docked in station some of his -10 alts, the Orca is neatly somewhere but can't be scanned. That's the "PvP thoughness" and "act with consquences" they have to deal with.
Oh well at least corp hopping is being dealt... oh, wait... it's not on the priority list , " we want to make it more hardcore"
See, EvE does this thing wrong. In another PvP MMO I play, there's a skill called "champion challenge". Both attacker and attacked are encased in a palisade until one of them dies. Both risk their skin.
In EvE it's only neut RR blob vs 1, 100000% stacking of odds against somebody and similar. Sure it's so much Sun Tsu and stuff but it's so lame. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:15:00 -
[263] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 2. It's a POS "lite," which entails two things: it's going to be easier to manage, and it will be cheaper to run. Those two things are offset by increased weakness to attack. I think it's a rational tradeoff.
It's rational only if they allow research to resume after the war ends. Else even if the POS is cheaper and easier, you still get 80M damage per slot and up to 33 lost days per BPO, which is the real damage. Well, it is kind of unwise to set 25-day jobs then, don't you think? Do it a few levels at a time, one for the really high-end prints. Some print types should probably have their timers lowered a bit, that I would have no problem agreeing with. This is still a risk/reward situation, however. You can choose to take a bigger risk and set a longer job, and reap a greater reward in the form of having to devote less time to lab management. Or you might not. PS: yes I called them "griefers," but I put the word in quotation marks. "Carebears" aren't really carebears either; we simply need to utilize labels for the sake of simplicity in our conversations.
No capital ship BPO goes below 27 days even with implants. This is for *1* research level (usually takes much more for 1 PE level) or for *1* copy job.
I am all it to get fractional research up, but till that date it's 27 days or die. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5772
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:15:00 -
[264] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh if only "having one" was it. No, you have to grind the standings, buy one and then to fill it, anchor the modules, buy the BPOs (read: return of investment is measured in YEARS) and copy them and they take up to 1 month and longer and if you are wardecced you'll lose about 80M per each lab slot per each POS, not counting the now quite expensive fuel expense that just got made vain. GǪmost of which are complete non-issues since you can easily work around them and/or are the cost of doing business. I keep repeating this because it's apparently so hard to grasp: want the POS, you get the wardec. Don't want the wardec because of what it creates, don't get the POS.
Quote:How many of the "new POS for everyone" users are going to bother with the above if they can be decced once a week? How many accept it now? I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what they want with the plan you keep quoting for the simple reason that you keep omitting the key component: it's only for everyone who can accept the wardecs. People have been using POSes without the GÇ£or notGÇ£ bit for nearly a decade. Once this short period where GÇ£or notGÇ£ was available is over, peolpe will still be using them.
If the new type isn't to you liking for some reason, don't use it. If it offers some benefit over the current ones (and they will), people will use them for the same reason they use POSes now. All it is is a new option and a new choice to make. It doesn't change
Quote:With the new rules? Care to list those ways? Work in shorter cycles. If they are not available, work in parallel with offsets. Or just figure out that what you're doing simply isn't a good or efficient way of using the BPO in question.
Quote:Too bad POSes exist and their disruption or destruction is more than "annoying", it's a setback of months. Yes. That's the whole point of having both POSes and wardecs.
Quote:And once they tied it together? They have never never achieved anything final against viral spamming, they won't even catch a one time scan that can be refreshed every some months. Ok, you completely missed what I was talking about. I'm talking about you doing research about the corps you're dealing with and tie the clues together to the point where you can easily spot the scam. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5772
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:18:00 -
[265] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you guys write many words I've nothing specific to say though because I'm "just" a programmer, just wanted to post here because I noticed some people thought nobody from the team was reading this thread Btw, Punkturis, could you explain (or ask someone else on the team to explain) the whole GÇ£can only have one surrender negotiation in progressGÇ¥ part in more detail?
My first throught when I heard this was that it could easily be used to block other people's ability to surrender a war by tying up the aggressors with continuous negotiations that never really end. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5772
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:31:00 -
[266] - Quote
Victoria Sefica wrote:Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far Oh, you mean those two things that are 100% PvP? Everything in this game is PvP because of its sandbox nature. It is pretty much inevitable when you put the two words GÇ£multiplayerGÇ¥ and GÇ£sandboxGÇ¥ together. In EVE, continuous, unavoidable, non-consensual PvP in its many forms is hard-coded into the game at every step of the way.
Ting von Amarr wrote:Maybe because PVP is a part of the game, not THE game. Maybe because players can just love trading, crafting, researching ? All of those things are PvP in and of themselves, and they also directly feed into, and completely rely on, destruction of assets through warfare.
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Xorv wrote:Point me to the part of EVE's economy that has nothing to do with warfare and blowing stuff up? P.I. resources > Fuel Blocks > Research POS > Fuel Block BPCs... regardless of whether or not there is PvP that cycle could continue indefinitely. EhmGǪ let's see.
P.I. Resources GåÆ competition over resources. Fuel blocks GåÆ competition over production facilities. Research POS GåÆ competition over margins. Fuel block BPCs GåÆ for what?
All of the things you've listed are competitive and all of them are part of, and feed directly into, the industry that feeds and lives on warfare. So that doesn't really answer Xorv's question GÇö it has everything to do with warfare simply by being a part of the industrial side of EVE: GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:37:00 -
[267] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪmost of which are complete non-issues since you can easily work around them and/or are the cost of doing business. I keep repeating this because it's apparently so hard to grasp: want the POS, you get the wardec. Don't want the wardec because of what it creates, don't get the POS.
Cost of doing business, have you ever tried to sell a product adding in such "costs"? Because nobody will give a damn if you had 3B of damage, your BP will sell for 2.5M exactly like everybody else's or it just won't sell.
But hey, don't worry we'll have some more lessons to explain that too. In the mean time I'll keep my safe niche in low sec and enjoy another super hyped Fanfest feature going well short of its planned success.
Tippia wrote:Work in shorter cycles. If they are not available, work in parallel with offsets. Or just figure out that what you're doing simply isn't a good or efficient way of using the BPO in question.
Capital BPOs cycles can't be shortened, work in parallel would only save an average of 1 BPO reserarch over the total slots.
Figuring out is easy: this puts capital research / copy services in the exclusive hands of huge corps who can have a PvP organization able to defend their multiple POSes around, 24/7. The smaller BPOs yield like 30% of a capital BPO (save special speculation events and similar) and make a POS unprofitable.
So not only they won't get new players to set up "POS lite" but also the old owners are stuck with unprofitable asset and with tens of billions worth of now pointless BPOs, whose market will crash.
Tippia wrote:Quote:Too bad POSes exist and their disruption or destruction is more than "annoying", it's a setback of months. Yes. That's the whole point of having both POSes and wardecs.
The point of having everything stacked against someone unable to fight back? Hey even the non Einsteins in RL got it that not everybody is a Chuck Norris and thus Police and similar have born to protect the weak and the handicapped. I suppose "EvE is real" is just real till it's convenient, right?
Tippia wrote: I'm talking about you doing research about the corps you're dealing with and tie the clues together to the point where you can easily spot the scam.
Never had to deal with mafia?
Once somebody spotted the scam? I mean, they can racket at will and if somebody "spots the scam" they can just actually kill what that guy got.
I.e. racket 500 small corps for risk free money and the one that rebels gets quickly nuked to extinction so more 500 small corps will pay risk free money. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:40:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Victoria Sefica wrote:Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far Oh, you mean those two things that are 100% PvP? Everything in this game is PvP because of its sandbox nature. It is pretty much inevitable when you put the two words GÇ£multiplayerGÇ¥ and GÇ£sandboxGÇ¥ together. In EVE, continuous, unavoidable, non-consensual PvP in its many forms is hard-coded into the game at every step of the way.
A miner or industrialist have to fight PvP in 5-6 layers. Glad to see you agree how an hi sec "PvP guy" is basically the one doing less PvP of all and actually acting as pure parasite. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5772
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:43:00 -
[269] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Cost of doing business, have you ever tried to sell a product adding in such "costs"? Yes. If you can't pay the costs, don't do the business (unless you're the philanthropic kind). It's no different than "if you want the POS, you get the wardec"
Quote:Capital BPOs cycles can't be shortened, work in parallel would only save an average of 1 BPO reserarch over the total slots. GǪso, like I said, work in parallel with offsets.
Quote:The point of having everything stacked against someone unable to fight back? Nice strawman. No. The whole point of having both POSes and wardecs is that you can disrupt and destroy them, setting people back by months (and billions).
Quote:Once somebody spotted the scam? I mean, they can racket at will and if somebody "spots the scam" they can just actually kill what that guy got. GǪor get killed in the process and break off, once the target realises that pouring mony into these particular corps won't solve his problem.
Quote:A miner or industrialist have to fight PvP in 5-6 layers. No. Just one. Just like everyone else. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:53:00 -
[270] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you can't pay the costs, don't do the business (unless you're the philanthropic kind). It's no different than "if you want the POS, you get the wardec"
I heard Incarna did well with your model. I also heard that adding more doors shut in face is the one way to promote Fanfest announced content.
Tippia wrote: so, like I said, work in parallel with offsets.
Which would be? Self taught English is not my forte.
Quote:The point of having everything stacked against someone unable to fight back? Nice strawman. No. The whole point of having both POSes and wardecs is that you can disrupt and destroy them, setting people back by months (and billions).
The whole point of having absolutely ZERO drawbacks at distrupting and destroying them is?
Tippia wrote: GǪor get killed in the process and break off, once the target realises that pouring mony into these particular corps won't solve his problem.
- So they get the pew pew they wanted
- Whatever happens their potential losses are 1 order of magnitude less than the attacked corp. Even more evident if hiring a docking games guy(s), minimum risk vs maximum kills.
- The target understands that pouring money to them won't solve his problem. Oh yes. And then he can do... what? Let me guess, hire a branded merc corp (the attackers will just retreat because hey, they only want to shoot the short bus guys not to be fired back) or hire a crappy merc corp which will join the wardec train on that guy 1 week later, on their alts. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
297
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:55:00 -
[271] - Quote
Hey Vaerah I have a question: if you're doing so damn well with your "safe niche in low sec," then why are you complaining about high-sec POSes? I mean if it's so safe, and so profitable, then others can just go out and do the same thing, right? Then all the scumbags will just sit around twiddling their thumbs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:56:00 -
[272] - Quote
Tippia wrote: A miner or industrialist have to fight PvP in 5-6 layers.
No. Just one. Just like everyone else.[/quote]
Nope they have to fight to get their stuff at minimum cost, fight to extract what's missing (miner), be possibly ganked by other though guys merrily exploiting CONCORD anyway, then fight on the market to get their stuff sold. Fight on the market so that they get the best price for their POS fuels...
Let me list which kind of layers your guy in a catalyst has to fight: 1) Buy 2M worth of hull. 2) Get out and gank.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hey Vaerah I have a question: if you're doing so damn well with your "safe niche in low sec," then why are you complaining about high-sec POSes? I mean if it's so safe, and so profitable, then others can just go out and do the same thing, right? Then all the scumbags will just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
Because as I have said and re-said including explicitly at you, I am not forcet to talk about ME. I know in this era of humanity it seems almost nonsensical talking in defense of somebody else but I am illogical like that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kira Vanachura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:56:00 -
[273] - Quote
Well, since the 2 biggest posters seem mostly interested in how wardecs affect POSs, I might as well join that discussion. I think wardecs are an important tool as they enable combat. What we are looking for imo is 'meaningfull' combat. At present meaningfull combat is most likely to occur if there is a wardec over a POS or CO. Other wardecs generally just result in griefing and people sitting in stations. I think the wardec meganism would improve if it was just a POS-removal tool. You wardec a corp and once the pos is removed the war ends. That would also mean that you cannot get a wardec if you don't own a POS. Alternatively wardecs can be removed from the game altogether. Just allow people to shoot at POSs and COs and if people want to defend, fights can escalate. No wars, just fights.
One of the issues why there is so little fighting over POSs is that free moons to anchor a POS are just not scarce enough (except near trade hubs). Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove all posses from 0.7 space, so POS space would be scarce enough to fight over.
The creation of all these small corporations so people can manage their own POS is the result of inadequate granularity in corp role management. I think CCP should fix that problem rather than let it affect how they design the new wardec system. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:00:00 -
[274] - Quote
Kira Vanachura wrote: The creation of all these small corporations so people can manage their own POS is the result of inadequate granularity in corp role management. I think CCP should fix that problem rather than let it affect how they design the new wardec system.
... which is exactly what was the point of my first posts pages ago.
The wardec system is bound to fail, because the "1 player 1 corp to do anything" is nonsensical exactly like it's nonsensical to impose many people joining a corp before making POS management less incredibly clunky and impractical (read: so easy to corp steal all and impossible to limit access privileges).
Edit:
When I was in a low sec / 0.0 PvP corp we still could NOT share the POS and had to do all sorts of gimnicks to keep it well separated off the corpies. How can someone pretend people begin to "conglomerate" (to be able to defend under the new wardec system) when sharing a POS is an exercise of stupidity to begin with? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ersteen Hofs
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
This is a good idea, basically will increase NPC corp tax isk sink efficiency a little. Since all the war evaders will join NPC corps now...
Too bad it won't add any more targets (realistic ones I mean) for the empire deccerrs. But such is a life. You can't get something that does not exist in the first place (carebear pvpers that is). However, you can force out of existance that which does exists (carebear subscribers and their $$$ paid for accs), and that will be achieved easily. Good luck with that flawless business plan, CCP! |
Remove Gang-Links
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:14:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Victoria Sefica]Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far Oh, you mean those two things that are 100% PvP? Everything in this game is PvP because of its sandbox nature. It is pretty much inevitable when you put the two words GÇ£multiplayerGÇ¥ and GÇ£sandboxGÇ¥ together. In EVE, continuous, unavoidable, non-consensual PvP in its many forms is hard-coded into the game at every step of the way.
This sums up Eve, the game is one big War Machine, everything feeds into PVP, directly or indriectly. All you here is bullshit carebears moan about ISK and there way of life in high-sec, pretty much everything in EVE is PVP. |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:31:00 -
[277] - Quote
Remove Gang-Links wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Victoria Sefica]Hm, wait I became a miner/industrialist in the first place because PvP didn't appeal to me, and I managed to play the game successfully so far Oh, you mean those two things that are 100% PvP? Everything in this game is PvP because of its sandbox nature. It is pretty much inevitable when you put the two words GÇ£multiplayerGÇ¥ and GÇ£sandboxGÇ¥ together. In EVE, continuous, unavoidable, non-consensual PvP in its many forms is hard-coded into the game at every step of the way. This sums up Eve, the game is one big War Machine, everything feeds into PVP, directly or indriectly. All you here is bullshit carebears moan about ISK and there way of life in high-sec, pretty much everything in EVE is PVP.
If only people had the good habit of reading through the last few pages (at least) of a forum thread before posting bull ***** themselves. BTW, funny how the forums censor ***** (latin for ****) but it doesn't do the same with bullshit |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5772
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:33:00 -
[278] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Which would be? Self taught English is not my forte. Week 1, start task 1 at site 1. Week 2, start task 2 at site 2. Repeat to fill available sites and slots.
Quote:The whole point of having absolutely ZERO drawbacks at distrupting and destroying them is? What the hell are you talking about?
Quote:- So they get the pew pew they wanted GǪa few times until their corp history is filled up with associative links that show what they're up to, at which point their plan has come to naught and they will no longer be able to extort any money or get any kills.
Quote:Nope they have to fight to get their stuff at minimum cost, fight to extract what's missing (miner), be possibly ganked by other though guys merrily exploiting CONCORD anyway, then fight on the market to get their stuff sold. Fight on the market so that they get the best price for their POS fuels... Exactly. It's all fights, all the time, no layers inbetween what they do and the constant competition. Just like with everyone and everything else.
Quote:The wardec system is bound to fail, because the "1 player 1 corp to do anything" is nonsensical. GǪexcept that one has nothing to do with the other. The wardec system will fail if no wardecs are being generated, or if only griefdecs are being generated GÇö in the first case, it has failed because it managed to remove itself from the game; in the latter, it's because it doesn't actually change anything. If it manages to mix things up and generate new gameplay (and it will, simply due to the new rules of engagement that exist) then it will have succeeded. How people respond in terms of setting up their corps is of pretty much zero relevance.
Your complaint has pretty much nothing to do with wardecs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:44:00 -
[279] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I typed this up quite a while ago, but I think it's as relevant now as ever: Now comes the balancing part, and it's really simple: simply multiply the base bill by the ratio of characters in the entity that declares war versus characters in the entity that is declared upon. For example, if corporation A (50 members) declares war, and corporation B receives it, then:
If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/10)] = 250 million ISK. If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/50)] = 50 million ISK. If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [50 * (50/100)] = 25 million ISK.
Now, what happens if corporation B has incoming wars from multiple entities? Once again, the answer is simple. Simply adjust the bill by the new ratio of total characters belonging to all entities that declare versus the total character count of the receiving entity. For example, let's say corporations X (10 members) and Y (40 members) join the hostilities by declaring war on corporation B. The base bill now becomes:
If corporation B has 10 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/10)] = 1,000 million (1 billion) ISK. If corporation B has 50 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/50)] = 200 million ISK. If corporation B has 100 members, the bill becomes [100 * (100/100)] = 100 million ISK.
This idea is superior! |
Victoria Sefica
Troubled Youth
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:51:00 -
[280] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The wardec system will fail if no wardecs are being generated, or if only griefdecs are being generated
With small corps much easier to pick on than medium or larger ones and corp hopping not solved, there is all the incentive for griefplay against small corps and what risk for the deccer precisely? Losing 22-3 mil for a decc? Come on, a decent Lvl4 is worth that much (with salvage+LP's) and for the decced it's seven days of inactivity + (potential) taking down of a PoS. Should things go the wrong way for deccer, he just corp hops to npc and carries on with his missioning, incursions and what not. Risk/reward ratios work heavily in favour deccer, and if you don't think that there will be even more griefplay then... huh.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:03:00 -
[281] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Which would be? Self taught English is not my forte. Week 1, start task 1 at site 1. Week 2, start task 2 at site 2. Repeat to fill available sites and slots.
That works for those who can afford 2 structures. I.e. not the CCP "POS lite" targets who I guess will be new players and "casuals".
Tippia wrote:GǪa few times until their corp history is filled up with associative links that show what they're up to, at which point their plan has come to naught and they will no longer be able to extort any money or get any kills.
Because the members of the racketing corp are rooted in it and will never be able to form a new one and thus delete any tracks. Don't think so.
Tippia wrote: Exactly. It's all fights, all the time, no layers inbetween what they do and the constant competition. Just like with everyone and everything else.
And so, why a sandbox player who prefers to play PvP on markets and industry HAS to fight PvP in their sandbox AND also be put in the sandbox of someone else? Are they better to deserve that?
Tippia wrote: Your complaint has pretty much nothing to do with wardecs.
It's fully relevant. They want to implement a fail feature to replace a fail feature without asking themselves WHY people would want to accept a wardec with the current or future terms. Refining fail still produces fail. Only fools believe that repeating the same things will deliver different results (you guess who invented this quote, it's not me).
The spaceships PvP friendly guys don't need a wardec to motivate them at all. Those who are not spaceship friendly just will dock and similar. Being in a one side deal is what makes even the non carebears not want to pretend to reply to such asymmetry.
Only way to really FORCE them to "PvP" is to implement in station PvP so whenever you log in, still at loading screen you get insta-ganked by a blob of "pro players". Let's see how good it'll do to the playerbase numbers though. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:06:00 -
[282] - Quote
Hey guys, thanks for many awesome replies.
Just a few comments:
- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet). - Also, we're looking into which corp members count. Not counting certain members (like characters on trial accounts) makes a lot of sense, but we have to be mindful of the information we're giving the aggressor here (he can then easily see the ratio of corp members not being counted, which can get tricky). We could mask this, but that has issues of it's own. So, nothing nailed down yet, but we're investigating the best way to go about this. - Someone asked about the surrender option limitation - you can't lock anyone out of offering surrender here, what this point means is simply that if you've made an offer, you can't make another until the first one has expired or been answered - you can't spam the other side with endless offers. - Finally, we're looking into whether we want to touch corp-hopping. Making changes to the corporation system is a very deep rabbit hole to fall into, but there were some excellent suggestions at the Fanfest for this and we're looking into them now.
We'll keep you posted once more details are nailed down. Expect a dev blog on the war dec system later this week, but that will basically just cover the stuff from the war dec presentation. So, more will follow in the future. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:16:00 -
[283] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet). It's good to have some dev feedback that you're making these considerations.
Just please, please don't end up with a system that's very inhospitable for small corporations that want to wage war. Remember, declaring on a much larger entity is already a handicap in itself.
PS: any word on removing the 3-war limitation for corporations? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:32:00 -
[284] - Quote
Victoria Sefica wrote:With small corps much easier to pick on than medium or larger ones and corp hopping not solved, there is all the incentive for griefplay against small corps and what risk for the deccer precisely? GǪhence why I was quick (in fact, the first) to suggest a ratio-based payment scheme during the roundtable.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That works for those who can afford 2 structures. I.e. not the CCP "POS lite" targets who I guess will be new players and "casuals". Tough. If you choose to go that route, you limit yourself in what you can do, and you get other benefits instead. Want to play in the big league with the big stuff, then you have to accept the terms of that league, including the costs of doing business and the precautions you need to take make it work (but get a whole slew of new options available to you as well). This is a good thing. More choice, more cost-benefit analysis, more options and versatility opening up as the stakes increase. It is how it should be. They are thinking about a new offer to fill in a new role GÇö not a new GÇ£one-size fits allGÇ¥ solution.
Quote:Because the members of the racketing corp are rooted in it and will never be able to form a new one and thus delete any tracks. GǪat which point you can figure out what kind of corp it is because they will have no track-record of honouring the kinds of deals they're trying to foist on you. Again, you do the research, and you make your choices. More choices become available, more options, more solutions, more opportunities. It is as it should be.
Quote:And so, why a sandbox player who prefers to play PvP on markets and industry HAS to fight PvP in their sandbox AND also be put in the sandbox of someone else? Are they better to deserve that? Except that they don't have to. You see, those market and industry people will have a very devastating weapon at their disposal that is now far more easily available to them and far more efficiently employed than ever before: ISK.
Quote:It's fully relevant. They want to implement a fail feature to replace a fail feature without asking themselves WHY people would want to accept a wardec with the current or future terms. It's not a fail feature GÇö it's a feature you're hoping to do something that it's not supposed to do. What you are looking for is what the current POS and corp system has to offer, and now you (once again) have to include the downsides you get along with those benefits. This feature is for someone else, for whom the problems you're enumerating do not apply, simply because they're on a completely different scale.
You're essentially complaining that the costs and benefits of siege mode are problematic when you're flying a frigate. They're not, because it does not apply to the level of ships you're using to tillustrate this supposed problem.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:32:00 -
[285] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:- Someone asked about the surrender option limitation - you can't lock anyone out of offering surrender here, what this point means is simply that if you've made an offer, you can't make another until the first one has expired or been answered - you can't spam the other side with endless offers. Thank you. I kind of suspected as much, but the wording used made it seem like it might have been intended to ensure that you couldn't get in and out of wars very quickly and if that were the case, I could think of several scenarios where such a system could be used to unduly block other people's options. If it's just an anti-spam system, then it's a non-issue.
Quote:- We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet). Yes, it is a bit easy to game a ratio-based system, but on the other hand, that kind of gaming the system is not necessarily bad since it opens up a cottage industry for other corps and alliances to provide the padding and/or slimming effects. It's probably just me, but I really like systems that can be turned into player-run services of that kind.
Really, the only issue with this to my mind is one where a corp would stay small to keep the cost down while they dec a small corp, and then immediately accept back in all those who want to join the fight, but the kinds of limitations for corp-hopping we talked about during the round-table could potentially be employed here as well. Also, even if this becomes possible, that just means there is a bit of a counter to when a target corporation manages to rally a few thousand allies to roflstomp whomever wardecced them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
gfldex
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:38:00 -
[286] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: The point I was trying to make is that you should not have to resort to ganking big alliances.
It is also not just about stopping freighters, its also about stopping their members from being able to come into high sec for any reason risk free.
And the point I was making is that you can still do that. But you have to get your finances sorted. There are various options. You can make sure you win fights and loot loot (that's what it's for). That may even mean that you have to leave Jita and find better places to gank ppl because you want to prevent the general public to nick the loot. To much work? You are a terrible lazy *beep* and should not be allowed to have any wardec what so ever.
You can try to get somebody else to pay for the wardec. How about the enemies of the Alliance you try to gank in highsec? Get some of the nice moon goo ISK, that's what that stuff is for.
Have a sound business plan to finance your war afford. Good killboard stats should require a little more then the skills to fly T3 ships and having a few out of corp reppers. Heck, you might even want to find some carebears to work together with. They get protection you get ISK to fuel the war. Sounds like work? Yes, and that's the point.
Right now wardecs don't work and don't require any form of player skill on the attacker side. Both needs to change.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:41:00 -
[287] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Victoria Sefica wrote:With small corps much easier to pick on than medium or larger ones and corp hopping not solved, there is all the incentive for griefplay against small corps and what risk for the deccer precisely? GǪhence why I was quick (in fact, the first) to suggest a ratio-based payment scheme during the roundtable.
It's lovely how the twe two of you are so ready to "Though luck, HTFU, if you can't defend just close shop, just get more members, just hire PvPers" on those who won't be able to defend themselves while you go all comprehensive and lovely to find ways to make it as smooth and affordable as possible for the aggressors.
*engages Tippia schooling voice*
Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunity.
Sucks eh? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
gfldex
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:44:00 -
[288] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account.
Indeed. And those corps need to be driven out of business because their member base suffers from terribad leadership. Good leadership should be a requirement to be allowed to have a corp. EVE is meant to have winners!
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:48:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for many awesome replies.
Just a few comments: .... Pity you didn't address that whole "unlimited allies" thing which is gonna kill war decs.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:51:00 -
[290] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It's lovely how the twe two of you are so ready to "Though luck, HTFU, if you can't defend just close shop, just get more members, just hire PvPers" on those who won't be able to defend themselves while you go all comprehensive and lovely to find ways to make it as smooth and affordable as possible for the aggressors.
*engages Tippia schooling voice*
Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunity. UhmGǪ you realise that what you just suggested doesn't make any sense, right? With the current suggestion, that 3-man harassment corp has no reason to join the 100-man corp to do their thing. There's also little reason (and no benefit to) to those defenders to try to work the system to their advantage.
With what I'm suggesting, there is.
gfldex wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. Indeed. And those corps need to be driven out of business because their member base suffers from terribad leadership. Good leadership should be a requirement to be allowed to have a corp. EVE is meant to have winners! By the way, someone at the roundtable floated the idea of having merc/alliance payment being on an on-going GÇ£per ISK destroyedGÇ¥ basis, which will be made possible with the new war report system. It has a few other issues (such as accidentally running someone's wallet dry by killing too muchGǪ), but some solutions were also discussed. This would make it far easier to pay exactly how much you want (which could be very little) for the amount of destruction you wish the enemy to suffer. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:58:00 -
[291] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:You realize how badly this would destroy the mercenary industry, right? Just because you can make money quickly doesn't mean you represent the majority of the player base. There's a whole lot of corporations out there who balk at paying on the lower end of a few hundred million for mercenary services, and that's before even taking the war fee into account. Indeed. And those corps need to be driven out of business because their member base suffers from terribad leadership. Good leadership should be a requirement to be allowed to have a corp. EVE is meant to have winners! You're silly. Just because a corporation isn't raking in tens of billions every week, doesn't mean that it's not being run well. There are newer players who can't grind hundreds of millions per day. There are also corporations that don't concentrate on money making (such as, gasp, my very own). Being new, or being someone whose sole concern isn't lining the wallet with billions in cash, doesn't necessitate being bad. These corporations have aspirations, drives, and exist in the same competitive environment that everyone else inhabits. Sometimes, these corporations need the help of people with guns.
You're not going to get very far on such sweeping generalizations.
Edit: Tippia, wouldn't linking the war fee to the amount of destruction done, you know, kind of defeat the concept of war in the first place? "Oh, you killed 800 million worth of stuff, now pay CONCORD 800 million" would be kind of ridiculous. That idea is pretty bad from all standpoints. Besides, it could be easily circumvented by zeroing out the wallet and/or making new corporations constantly. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:59:00 -
[292] - Quote
Tippia wrote:UhmGǪ you realise that what you just suggested doesn't make any sense, right? With the current suggestion, that 3-man harassment corp has no reason to join the 100-man corp to do their thing. There's also little reason (and no benefit to) to those defenders to try to work the system to their advantage.
I realise that you are salivating to enforce a one sided deal while being all comprehensive for the strong side.
I also realize that talking about a 3 men bravely assaulting a 100 men corp is something you can sell to someone reading about EvE on an internet ad, while you know too well the 3 men equal to 3 players with 8 RR neut alts each (+ Falcon alt, why not) against 100 scrubs who are more harmless than 1 of those 3 men. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Gaspod TWD
Causality Crew LTD Angel Causalities Demolition Crew
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:02:00 -
[293] - Quote
IGÇÖd like to add a couple of my thought on the new war-dec system. My only experiences of war-decs are being in a corp that is decced, so forgive (yeah right, flame away) if I am ignorant of how the mechanics actually work.
IGÇÖd like to see consequences of starting a war. From what I understand, the aggressor starts a war and if they donGÇÖt like the way things are going, they can just let it lapse after the 7 days is up. What IGÇÖd like to see is the defender be given the option to keep the war going. I know that the defenders could just dec the aggressors back but if the defender is a 10-man corp and the aggressor is a 1,000-man corp, the cost would be over -+ a billion ISK.
So give the defenders the option to declare a war for free. Or for the same cost as it cost the aggressors (if less than the cost to start a war). Or even make the aggressors continue to pay.
So if you declare a war, be sure you can win it or it may bite you in the arse.
Allies of the defenders should be able to continue to help out the defenders (though they are now the aggressors) but should also be able to opt out or renegotiate their payment now the war has changed from one of defence to one of aggression.
I would also like to see a permanent agreement for a corp to have allies. You pay another corp a weekly or monthly fee and if you are war-decced, they automatically get drawn in to the war as your allies. This information should be available so that when you are thinking of war-deccing someone, you know who else you are starting a war with.
Obviously this will give merc groups a way to earn by offering protection to those corps who canGÇÖt defend themselves. The defenceless corps can protect themselves from decs as aggressors will see that they have allies ready and waiting.
ItGÇÖll also give high-sec war-dec corps ways of setting up protection rings. They start a war on a corp and as part of the surrender terms, they get their targets to accept (and pay) them as their protectors. So, as long as they pay, they donGÇÖt get decced by them and they get defended (possibly) if other entities dec them.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:07:00 -
[294] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I realise that you are salivating to enforce a one sided deal while being all comprehensive for the strong side. Then you've realised nothing. Maybe you should go back and read what I've actually written so far, since it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said.
So, once again: nice strawman.
Quote:I also realize that talking about a 3 men bravely assaulting a 100 men corp is something you can sell to someone reading about EvE on an internet ad, while you know too well the 3 men equal to 3 players with 8 RR neut alts each (+ Falcon alt, why not) against 100 scrubs who are more harmless than 1 of those 3 men. GǪand as luck would have it, they're going to make those neutral alts be next to worthless. By the way, you were the one talking about 3 men bravely assaulting 100 men, not me. So guess what? Nice strawman.
Gaspod TWD wrote:IGÇÖd like to see consequences of starting a war. From what I understand, the aggressor starts a war and if they donGÇÖt like the way things are going, they can just let it lapse after the 7 days is up. What IGÇÖd like to see is the defender be given the option to keep the war going. I know that the defenders could just dec the aggressors back but if the defender is a 10-man corp and the aggressor is a 1,000-man corp, the cost would be over -+ a billion ISK. Yes, this was something we never got to in the discussions unfortunately. Now that you can only make a wardec mutual during the ramp-up period, you can no longer use it as a revenge mechanic. I never the the opportunity to ask exactly what issue they were trying to solve with this, so maybe CCP SoniClover can expand on that (if he's still reading the thread).
Why did you choose to change the mutuality-declaration like that? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:08:00 -
[295] - Quote
Gaspod TWD wrote: Obviously this will give merc groups a way to earn by offering protection to those corps who canGÇÖt defend themselves. The defenceless corps can protect themselves from decs as aggressors will see that they have allies ready and waiting.
That could be a good start.
Gaspod TWD wrote: ItGÇÖll also give high-sec war-dec corps ways of setting up protection rings. They start a war on a corp and as part of the surrender terms, they get their targets to accept (and pay) them as their protectors. So, as long as they pay, they donGÇÖt get decced by them and they get defended (possibly) if other entities dec them.
This would be akin to implementing RL mafia and racketing in a game. As person forced to live in a country completely infected by both of them, I hate this very concept with my soul.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Resivan
Driftglass Development
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:09:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: - We are constantly revising the war dec cost formula. We're probably not going to adjust price based on aggressor size (simply because this can be so easily gamed), but we'll look into having some sort of diminishing cost based on defender size (nothing nailed down yet).
Use a 7-day rolling average or the largest number of members the attacker had and the smallest number of members the defender had in the previous week. It's a little more data to store, but you're already going to be adding quite a bit to what you track.
What I'm after is is a market signal that says "pick on someone your own size", but still allows attacking larger or smaller corps if that's what they're into. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:10:00 -
[297] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I realise that you are salivating to enforce a one sided deal while being all comprehensive for the strong side. Then you've realised nothing. Maybe you should go back and read what I've actually written so far, since it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said. So, once again: nice strawman.
The attitude you have shown till now is not conducting with your words.
Tippia wrote: By the way, you were the one talking about 3 men bravely assaulting 100 men, not me. So guess what? Nice strawman.
No I quoted another player talking about it. So guess what, you should also go back and read what others have written so far.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:17:00 -
[298] - Quote
I talked about implementing a UI element for protection rackets here. I think such a system would actually be quite doable, but I doubt CCP would go through the effort.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This would be akin to implementing RL mafia and racketing in a game. As person forced to live in a country completely infected by both of them, I hate this very concept with my soul. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for the game. Especially when no one forces you to be the bad guy. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:20:00 -
[299] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for the game. Especially when no one forces you to be the bad guy.
I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:22:00 -
[300] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The attitude you have shown till now is not conducting with your words. Maybe you should stop reading so much into things then, and pay some attention to the wordsGǪ
Quote:No I quoted another player talking about it. So guess what, you should also go back and read what others have written so far. Maybe you should. You'll notice a distinct lack of any kind of quotation marks, citation reference, or other source for your comment. So no. You said it GÇö you have to live with it and accept that it was a strawman. If you didn't, attribute it properly and realise that it's still a strawman since you used it against someone who didn't say it.
Oh, and to answer your editGǪQuote:Anyway hi sec failed both as basic retribution system (can be gamed so much to make it pointless). Bounty system failed as it can be so easily gamed. Aggression mechanics partially failed because of so many rules and they don't scale up to multiple people. GǪthey're fixing all of that, so why are you arguing so vehemently against it?
Quote:I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks. Why not? It's what the game is. Do you object to GTA3 teaching new players to run old ladies over for cash? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:24:00 -
[301] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote: And yes, I see every singel wardec as a grif-dec. It's up to you, to show me a singel wardec in the past 7 years which was no grif-dec.
A few years ago Dark-Rising declared war on Red Alliance when we found out that they moved the money making from 0.0 to lvl4 agents. That was before the first lvl4 nerf. We later found out that RA found a nice way to farm COSMOS missions to gain the standing for running the last few missions. Those missions used to give faction BS bpcs. That farming was the reason why Fleet Tempests dropped in price so much at some point and forced CCP to change the requirements to get the faction ship BPCs via COSMOS missions.
Was quite a fun war with lots of racing around in highsec and small fights all over minmatar space. At least until they just dropped chars out of RA and went for missions that way.
Your assumption that there are only grief-decs (you even miss spelled it) in highsec is simply wrong. There are and where decs on out of alliance logistic corps in EVE. Learning the names of the alts that do logistic operations in highsec is the end game for spies for a reason. The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:30:00 -
[302] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for the game. Especially when no one forces you to be the bad guy.
I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks. Dude this is a video game. |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:35:00 -
[303] - Quote
[quote=CCP SoniClover]Finally, we're looking into whether we want to touch corp-hopping. Making changes to the corporation system is a very deep rabbit hole to fall into, but there were some excellent suggestions at the Fanfest for this and we're looking into them now.[/quote
You *need* to prevent attackers from accepting new members, this fixes at least one key problem with the wardec system You also really need to do something about neutral remote repping, Grayscale made it pretty clear that CCP would like it not to be done, and the players (except of course the neutral RR'ers) would like it not to be done - penalize it heavily until it stops
The longer bit A) Any competent attacker can make a defender unable to perform non-PvP activities B) Any competent attacker can avoid risky fights (stations, cloaking, logonski) while picking only sure wins A competent defender can avoid losing fights based on B, only by accepting A and presenting no targets that are not an overwhelming force An attacker will not fight an overwhelming force. They have nothing to defend, and no reason to sally forth from safe locations until there is a gank target [i]This means that an competently played wardec is inevitably a stalemate that lasts until the attacker chooses to end it.[/i Considering the attacker is far more likely than the defender to be alt-characters, this means the attacker can deny the defender the ability to play PvE, *and* the ability to PvP with the attacker, for an indefinite time period, at a small loss to themselves which is easy to mitigate
Surrendering, as it is now, is a non-option. There is no benefit to surrendering as you will be attacked *more* in future. Noone does this because it does not work
A penalty of 6 days of unwanted wardec is the maximum discomfort imposed on even a complete failure of a wardec by your changes. This is neither a discouragement for poor choice of target, nor any kind of significant stake. This penalty is likely imposed on alts. The comparable penalty for the defender for 'being a likely target', is an indefinite period of unwanted wardec on probable main characters. This means that your balancing attempt of not allowing an attacker to drop the dec in the first few days has no real effect --
The wardec system will not work until the defender and attacker have a gameplay based reason to fight it, instead of every existing mechanic benefiting most the players who choose only to fight if there is no chance of failure
The wardec system as is does not force non-consensual PvP, it forces inactivity. This is not good game design |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:39:00 -
[304] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maybe you should stop reading so much into things then, and pay some attention to the wordsGǪ
Words may be empty, how someone acts is not.
Tippia wrote:Maybe you should. You'll notice a distinct lack of any kind of quotation marks, citation reference, or other source for your comment.
It was all of 1 post above mine. Thought a Forum Warrior would manage.
Tippia wrote: they're fixing all of that, so why are you arguing so vehemently against it?
Because neither you nor (much more important) CCP understand that such ancient rulesets are dated, fixed or not.
You want to have WARS? Then motivate people to DO wars, not to escape them. No, putting a force collar around someone's neck won't do. Like for most things, there's a small portion, like 15% of "all pure PvPers", a 15% of "all pure carebears" plus a 70% of "don't care, does not matter, I am undecided, I would but..."
Neither of the extremes can be coherced against their will but the undecided majority can be given some compelling reason to side for the PvP side instead of siding for the carebear side.
What is the current compelling reason for the Average Joe to enjoy and join into a wardec?
Only once CCP finds a mechanism to answer to such question, then they should dress it with a proper official mechanic.
Tippia wrote:Do you object to GTA3 teaching new players to run old ladies over for cash?
GTA3 does not last years nor depicts you as pristine winning smart hero defining the new de facto way, it does not slowly poison your mind.
Edit:
@Shandir Glad someone got it! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:40:00 -
[305] - Quote
Shandir wrote:You also really need to do something about neutral remote repping, Grayscale made it pretty clear that CCP would like it not to be done, and the players (except of course the neutral RR'ers) would like it not to be done - penalize it heavily until it stops Unfortunately, this was something that was purposefully left out of both the wardec and the crimewatch discussions, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that neutral-supporting a war target would have pretty much the same consequences as neutral-supporting a participant in the suggested duel system: you get flagged suspsect and go red to everyone in the system.
After all, in both instances, you're interfering with a CONCORD-sanction slugging match, so the penalty should be about the sameGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:43:00 -
[306] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Shandir wrote:You also really need to do something about neutral remote repping, Grayscale made it pretty clear that CCP would like it not to be done, and the players (except of course the neutral RR'ers) would like it not to be done - penalize it heavily until it stops Unfortunately, this was something that was purposefully left out of both the wardec and the crimewatch discussions, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that neutral-supporting a war target would have pretty much the same consequences as neutral-supporting a participant in the suggested duel system: you get flagged suspsect and go red to everyone in the system. After all, in both instances, you're interfering with a CONCORD-sanction slugging match, so the penalty should be about the sameGǪ
That would certainly be good, and probably would even be enough to balance the tactic with how suspect flags work. I suspect that will be entertaining. |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:46:00 -
[307] - Quote
i support this idea
I have been wardec often while in my mining corp for newbs. The wardecs that really suck are the ones that don't even show up to fight because they don't know how to use locator agents or a spy to find where we actually have our ops.
If I get wardec I want the person to be serious so when I shell out the isk to hire the mercs to protect me there will be some action. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5774
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:54:00 -
[308] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It was all of 1 post above mine. Oh reallyGǪ? Let's see:
GÇ£And the point I was making is that you can still do that. But you have to get your finances sorted. There are various options. You can make sure you win fights and loot loot (that's what it's for). That may even mean that you have to leave Jita and find better places to gank ppl because you want to prevent the general public to nick the loot. To much work? You are a terrible lazy *beep* and should not be allowed to have any wardec what so ever.GÇ¥ GÇö no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.
GÇ£You can try to get somebody else to pay for the wardec. How about the enemies of the Alliance you try to gank in highsec? Get some of the nice moon goo ISK, that's what that stuff is for.GÇ¥ GÇö no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.
GÇ£Have a sound business plan to finance your war afford. Good killboard stats should require a little more then the skills to fly T3 ships and having a few out of corp reppers. Heck, you might even want to find some carebears to work together with. They get protection you get ISK to fuel the war. Sounds like work? Yes, and that's the point.GÇ¥ GÇö no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.
GǪand finallyGǪ
GÇ£Right now wardecs don't work and don't require any form of player skill on the attacker side. Both needs to change.GÇ¥ GÇö no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.
So no. It wasn't. Nor was it in the thread above that, or the one above that, or the one above that third one. Instead, you just threw out GÇ£Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunityGÇ¥ without any kind of quotation mark; without any kind of reference; without anything implying it being cited from somwhere; and without any connection to what was said in the quote you were responding to. You said this in response to my post and you directed it at me as if I was making any kind of argument in that direction, which I wasn't. This makes it a classic strawman: you are trying to attribute a statement to someone who never said it, and then you go on to argue against this stance that doesn't even exist. Now you only dig yourself deeper by trying to attribute it to a different source where it also wasn't said. Would you like to try again or would just like to accept that what you said made no sense whatsoever in context?
Quote:Because neither you nor (much more important) CCP understand that such ancient rulesets are dated, fixed or not.
You want to have WARS? Then motivate people to DO wars, not to escape them. There is plenty of motivation there already. Being a target is not meant to be pleasant, but that's why they are giving the target new means of dealing with the problem. They're also giving people very clear rules for what makes you a target and why.
Quote:GTA3 does not last years nor depicts you as pristine winning hero, it does not slowly poison your mind. Neither does EVE.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:04:00 -
[309] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:- A scaling cost based on the size differential between the two corps.
That's a bad idea because of the skillpoint gap. No matter what you do, deep pockets will allow you to game the system. I agree that the member based fee should not be linear but trying to find The Perfect Solution wont work, because it's actually fun to game the system.
Instead of focusing on the abstract concept (that means it only exists in your head) of general fairness (what you can't achieve in EVE anyway because of the skillpoint gap) you may want to think about what the consequences of wars should be. It's part of a game and as such it needs a function or it's just redundant whistles and bells.
Ohh, there is another point. No matter how hard you try to e-lobby EVE-U is ****** anyway. The old EVE-U would not have been (the one before the deal to gain 0.0 access in the east) but the new make-6-ppl-sick-rich-eve-u wont stand a chance. You either become old school again or you will perish.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:05:00 -
[310] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: @Shandir Glad someone got it!
I appreciate you supporting my points, but your off-topic ranting and flame war with Tippia makes my post look bad by association. So either raise the bar a little, or keep your support on the down-low, kay?
I support wardecs, I want there to be wardecs. I want the carebears who cannot muster a defence to have to scramble for support from Mercs or suffer for a while. I also support that wardeccing corps who pick the wrong target should get screwed hard, that a wardec corp who picks a fight with the wrong group of carebears will feel the pain twice as much as the groups they attack.
Here's one of those user cases that I think CCP uses.
"As a carebear, when I get wardecced, I must surrender, flee or muster our defences for a hard fight." Sub-case: "When I surrender, I pay a cost for some limited protection for a while, surrendering is expensive and not perfect but it makes me safer" Sub-case: "When I flee, I pay in time, rather than ISK. I will be unable to pursue my career as I am besieged. After a time, this will relent." Sub-case: "When I fight and lose, it costs me - probably more than if I had surrendered or fled. I feel foolish and will have to ready myself to win next time, or make a wiser choice and surrender or flee." Sub-case: "When I fight and win, I gain something significant, my attacker loses something significant, and my opponent will not attack me again unless they feel certain of victory."
If this happens, then you will have good, fun gameplay in EVE style. If you can't protect it, you will lose it, if you can protect it, you will prosper. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5775
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:11:00 -
[311] - Quote
Shandir wrote:I support wardecs, I want there to be wardecs. I want the carebears who cannot muster a defence to have to scramble for support from Mercs or suffer for a while. I also support that wardeccing corps who pick the wrong target should get screwed hard, that a wardec corp who picks a fight with the wrong group of carebears will feel the pain twice as much as the groups they attack.
[GǪ]
If this happens, then you will have good, fun gameplay in EVE style. If you can't protect it, you will lose it, if you can protect it, you will prosper. Yup. I think some of the problems with the current proposal is that, while the ally/merc system allows for some GÇ£blow-up-in-your-faceGÇ¥ factor for the attacker, the decision to change how wars are made mutual make it a bit too easy for the aggressor to get out of the trouble he started, should things not work out the way they expected.
Also, for all of this to work, a revamp of corp-hopping (on both sides) need to be put into place and be made a part of the preparation for war, rather than a tactic to be used after the war starts.
Alt corps will always be a problem, for everyone, but I can't really imagine a way to build your way out of that without drastically reducing an awful amount of legitimate gameplay and (in the end) just creating the same kind of unenforceable spaghetti rule-set that got us where we are today. As such, it's better to accept these metagaming tacitcs as a given and provide people with various tools to ferret out these corps (which, btw, will make things a whole lot more interesting on the GÇ£legitimate warGÇ¥ front), thus skewing it more towards being an actual in-game facet of warfare. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:23:00 -
[312] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So no. It wasn't. Nor was it in the thread above that, or the one above that, or the one above that third one. Instead, you just threw out GÇ£Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunityGÇ¥ without any kind of quotation mark; without any kind of reference; without anything implying it being cited from somwhere;
Glad you found the post with the part it explicitly quoted. Now on the next task: read the other posts off the same poster since far back the thread about the concerns similar to "please don't end up with a system that's very inhospitable for small corporations that want to wage war. Remember, declaring on a much larger entity is already a handicap in itself".
While the concern is valid, the take from only one side of it is less, and the "handicap in itself" only happens in the excruciantly rare case the aggressed corp fights back (this is the reason why few men corps attack the 100 men corps after all).
Tippia wrote: There is plenty of motivation there already. Being a target is not meant to be pleasant, but that's why they are giving the target new means of dealing with the problem. They're also giving people very clear rules for what makes you a target and why.
If there was plenty of motivation, then why are they changing it? Ah, because there was not motivation to fight back. See, going to a dentist is neither cheap nor pleasant but you go because it's a long term solution that works. You don't have to call off work for 28 days either.
If you get decced instead, you take the unpleasant plus the costs plus the next week it may begin again and in the meanwhile you have lost job cycles and whatsnot.
If you fight back? LOL grats you managed to kill an alt in an insured ship plus you gave him what he wanted (the spaceships pew pew) and now he'll obviously want more.
Quote:GTA3 does not last years nor depicts you as pristine winning hero, it does not slowly poison your mind. Neither does EVE. [/quote]
EvE does last years, with repetition comes custom, with custom comes de facto, with de facto comes standard.
Shandir wrote:[quote=Vaerah Vahrokha] @Shandir Glad someone got it! I appreciate you supporting my points, but your off-topic ranting and flame war with Tippia makes my post look bad by association. So either raise the bar a little, or keep your support on the down-low, kay?
I apologize for trying to present a different point of view to Tippia than his own (won't compute). I endorse what you say and I'll see if I can find suggestions on it instead of replying to a rubber wall. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:25:00 -
[313] - Quote
I think the solution has to lie in some real way to 'win' a war, and for an ISK-based penalty for losing. To make war a gamble that you may lose.
The problem here is that it is *very* hard to define 1 or even a finite number of 'win' conditions that apply to everyone and cannot be easily gamed.
I am leaning towards thinking that the real 'win' condition has to be which side wants the war to be over (ie. Surrender) - and that the surrender mechanics need to be revised to make it a non-stupid option.
I think the first step in this plan is to make it *mandatory* for one side to surrender. Potentially for as little as 1 isk, but that dropping the dec is not an option. Once you start a war, you are in it until you make your opponent surrender, or you surrender yourself. And you must continue paying a fee. The fee which will be (partially or fully) returned to the victor.
My suggestion: 1) When a war is declared, a fee is calculated based on the size of the defender. This fee is halved and one part is a fee paid to CONCORD, the other part is a stake on winning the war. The fee is paid weekly. 2) A war is ended only by surrender, or by the dissolution of one corp. 3) When one side declares a surrender at an agreed price (use the same system as for Mercs), the winning side recieves the stake paid by the attacker. 4) After a period of (1 month - 3 months?), either side may surrender immediately for 1 isk. 5) A corp which surrenders by negotiation will also negotiate the length of time the wardeccing corp is not permitted to re-dec. Members of the wardeccing corp may not join, and are booted from any corp which decs the surrendering corp. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:32:00 -
[314] - Quote
Have you guys realized yet that you're arguing with a person who literally thinks that extorting imaginary currency in a video game called EVE Online makes you a mafia crook in real life if you do it long enough? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:35:00 -
[315] - Quote
Shandir wrote: 5) A corp which surrenders by negotiation will also negotiate the length of time the wardeccing corp is not permitted to re-dec. Members of the wardeccing corp may not join, and are booted from any corp which decs the surrendering corp.
I like your practical and most of all fair and bilateral approach to the matter.
Though point 5 has an issue in case the members of the wardeccing corp go and join another merc corp, get roles, take shared stuff etc. then they get booted. This would create some loopholes like i.e. members willingly join another merc corp to purposedly get booted and keep the stuff.
I think an alternate mechanism would be that after a merc corp accepts the surrender terms, their *account* gets a cooldown attached to them so they cannot wardec the former attacked corp till it expires.
If they join another merc corp, that merc corp "inherits" the timer so they won't be able to wardec the same surrendered corp. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pedro Snachez
The Rolling Clones
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:22:00 -
[316] - Quote
Is there some way wardec information could be recorded to characters in a corporation in addition to the corporation itself?
For example: Corp A wardecs Corp B. Corp B surrenders to Corp A, and there is a 2 week non-aggression pact signed. Now, if players from Corp A hop corps to Corp C and redec, could their characters be marked for this non-aggression pact in addition to Corp A?
Perhaps the characters would not be booted from Corp C, and there would be no other limitation to Corp C, except those characters originally from Corp A would not see Corp B as valid war targets until their personal timers had cooled down. That way there would be no real incentive to hopping to a new corp, but also no risk of being arbitrarily booted because of a new war filed by the newly-joined corp. Is this a possibility with the code? |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:28:00 -
[317] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:You're going to have to find the web devs somewhere to post forum issues
I did only halve a year ago. Being snotty can backfire, you know.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:39:00 -
[318] - Quote
Victoria Sefica wrote:Now if they make corp size differences (deccer vs the decced) matter in war costs, fix corp hopping (whatever that ccp guy said, risks for deccers are un-existent as long as they can go back to npc corps during wartime) and stick folks who neut-RR an individual war flag for the duration of the conflict... well then it could be called a major improvement.
Neut-RR dudes will be flagged as suspects. Suspects can be shot by any player. Check the crime watch presentation for details. The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Thabiso
Merchants of the Golden Goose
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:41:00 -
[319] - Quote
Tam Althor wrote:wow, this guy keeps saying they want war decs hardcore, but the aggressor is always allowed to drop the dec by not paying. Make it real hardcore.... you start a dec you get locked into it no matter how many allies your target brings until you surrender.
My thoughts exactly - you want war? Let there be war!
War normally last til one side has been pounded into submission - either by will of their people or by bombing the crap out of the other side; eve shouldn't be different. |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:56:00 -
[320] - Quote
Tippia wrote:By the way, someone at the roundtable floated the idea of having merc/alliance payment being on an on-going Gǣper ISK destroyedGǥ basis, which will be made possible with the new war report system. It has a few other issues (such as accidentally running someone's wallet dry by killing too muchGǪ), but some solutions were also discussed. This would make it far easier to pay exactly how much you want (which could be very little) for the amount of destruction you wish the enemy to suffer.
A long long time ago (note the music playing in your head) I was with Praetorian Industry (we never build anything) and beside being a quasi-subdevision of MASS, we did some merc work and had no problem with an informal agreement. After all we showed our customer that we are able and willing to destroy ships in space and it might be a risky move to not pay us.
What we had a problem with was providing evidence of kills. Making confirmed kills visible to contractees or even the general public could help to spot kill forgery. It's a bit silly to have to open the ingame browser to see ingame kills in a OOG killboard anyways.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
|
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:15:00 -
[321] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: You're silly.
I would prefer if you would leave personal attacks where they belong to.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just because a corporation isn't raking in tens of billions every week, doesn't mean that it's not being run well. There are newer players who can't grind hundreds of millions per day. There are also corporations that don't concentrate on money making (such as, gasp, my very own). Being new, or being someone whose sole concern isn't lining the wallet with billions in cash, doesn't necessitate being bad.
In a game where a new player can make 20M in one hour with lvl2 missions (And yes, I tried with a new char I made with one of them fancy 60day trials. Sadly I can't tell you how to do that because I'm "silly". Insulting folk wont make you friends, you know.) not having a few billion laying around _as_a_co-operation_ makes you bad players. Point blank. ISK is easy and when the rules of the game favour those with ISK (when did it not?) any good player has very good reason to get rich. One of the things that makes good leadership is the ability to provide motivation to your member base. That may even be the motivation to make ISK. Getting knowledgeable players into your corp is another objective for your leadership team. The players you recruit are the players you play with.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:These corporations have aspirations, drives, and exist in the same competitive environment that everyone else inhabits.
That's what EVE used to be. We had meaningful gameplay for players who wanted to be mercs. Merc corps where competing with each other over customers. Then CCP turned highsec into carebear land and those merc corps pretty much vanished. You are asking for competition? Inferno will deliver.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:34:00 -
[322] - Quote
Gaspod TWD wrote:I would also like to see a permanent agreement for a corp to have allies. You pay another corp a weekly or monthly fee and if you are war-decced, they automatically get drawn in to the war as your allies. This information should be available so that when you are thinking of war-deccing someone, you know who else you are starting a war with.
So the G0p-St0p CEO would cause The Chain Reaction of Exponatioal Wardecs by the press of a single button? Trust me, it's much more fun when the G0p-St0p CEO does not know what he just started. Informal agreements are fun because they create uncertainty and drama. We need more player interaction, not less.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
gfldex
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:39:00 -
[323] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I can't support a game teaching players the mafia mindset as baseline for new / defensless players, it's an awful cancer for the society and unlike other roleplayed features (i.e. killing somebody in PvP) it does not easily go off once you log off, it sticks. Dude this is a video game.
If you threaten his ISK printing machine of capital BPO research, the King of Carebear (and unreasonable reasoning) goes into full forum attack mode. (I'm assuming that the char in question is still in the hand of the player that was in control when he was in Dark-Rising.) Telling a carebear that a video game is a video game is as useful ask asking Fox News for credibility.
Lets burn down Carebears-Online and rise Everlasting-Fun-Online from it's ashes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5776
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:48:00 -
[324] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Glad you found the post with the part it explicitly quoted. Now on the next task: read the other posts off the same poster GǪexcept of course that you didn't explicitly quote that post, and except that you are still saying something that was never said by the person you were referring to when you said it (and no matter what, you said it GÇö no attribution or quotation was used). The latter is a strawman, no matter how much you try to wiggle out of it; the former is you moving the goal posts GÇö another fun fallacy.
Quote:If there was plenty of motivation, then why are they changing it? Because there were exploits with the old systems that were better built out than policed out. The problem here is that you're making absolute statements (which, as the saying goes, are absolutely false): you're painting a picture of GÇ£no motivationGÇ¥ from GÇ£some lacked motivationGÇ¥. The motivations were always there; those motivations are still there; and now they add a few more.
Quote:EvE does last years EVE last as long as the game lasts, just like GTA3 and it teaches you how to play the game, just like GTA3 does. So, again: why is it not horrid that GTA3 teaches you to run over old ladies for cash? And no, people do not generally suffer from the borderline personality disorders required to have game and real life get mashed up the way you're suggesting. You're not using yourself as a point of reference here, I hope?
gfldex wrote:A long long time ago (note the music playing in your head) I was with Praetorian Industry (we never build anything) and beside being a quasi-subdevision of MASS, we did some merc work and had no problem with an informal agreement. After all we showed our customer that we are able and willing to destroy ships in space and it might be a risky move to not pay us.
What we had a problem with was providing evidence of kills. Making confirmed kills visible to contractees or even the general public could help to spot kill forgery. It's a bit silly to have to open the ingame browser to see ingame kills in a OOG killboard anyways. The way I understood it, that war information GÇö including the continuous accumulation of kills and losses GÇö would be available pretty much directly from the corp info screen, so you'd have exactly what you're asking for. That's why this guy at the roundtable suggested that they leveraged that internal data connection to pretty much bill the contractee on the fly based on some percentage of destroyed value (determined by the contract, with some max expenses to limit how much you get sucked dry and with the ability to renegotiate that limit). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
My Neutral Toon
Knights Who Til Recently Said Ni
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:53:00 -
[325] - Quote
They need to re-design EVE to be more new-casual-player friendly. Like WoW, eventually EVE will guide your through the game and hold your hand. ...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious.... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
437
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 19:39:00 -
[326] - Quote
gfldex wrote:
If you threaten his ISK printing machine of capital BPO research, the King of Carebear (and unreasonable reasoning) goes into full forum attack mode. (I'm assuming that the char in question is still in the hand of the player that was in control when he was in Dark-Rising.) Telling a carebear that a video game is a video game is as useful ask asking Fox News for credibility.
Kings of carebears don't join Dark Rising as early as they can't even still fly a T1 fit Rifter nor stick in Dark Rising from when they were based in a Gallente Hi sec system to when they moved to OMS to when they moved to Esesier to when they moved to Taff and then to 0.0.
Sure I always loved industry to the point you can recall or ask the chief industry guy how I pushed several times to let my industry alts in and - how peculiar - I spent ALL my ISK to buy my first capital BPO exactly to make stuff for Dark Rising (for free).
Sadly - and I sent the evemail to everyone about it (if I recall correctly) - one day my RL life stopped letting me play enough to be of any worth in DR and *with huge pain as the DR guys were a cool bunch* I had to leave and forever be doomed to be "casual".
Anyway if you think all of this = king of carebears, be my guest, I'd like to see how many kings of carebears do all of this. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:21:00 -
[327] - Quote
Geister Bob wrote:Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. (Corp being decced: maybe other way around...)
Nice. Certainly make it so that the aggressors membership is capped yet allow the defender to bring in all the new pilots that they want. Then, the aggressor only pays for the war decc on the original number of pilots. That's fair enough. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for party crashers.
|
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:32:00 -
[328] - Quote
Gummy Plaude wrote:I have mixed feelings here.
War is about objectives. Wardecs still haven't any objectives other than metagaming ie extorsion, pvp or plain grief.
In my opinion Corporations should choose to commit into the War system by gaining access to certain ISK faucets and facilities or stay in a neutral status by renouncing those goodies.
One of the main advices given to new players is to join a corporation, but for a large part of hisec corporations wardecs are periods where they're strongly encouraged not to undock. I can't see this changing with the new system.
Thank you. Show me the benefit of joining a high sec corp or alliance where you are constantly in danger of getting jumped because of high sec griefing war deccs? If you are an industrial player then there would be no benefit to joining a high sec corp or alliance unless it was a mega. |
Wolfgang Helm
Valar Morghulis. Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 15:42:00 -
[329] - Quote
I have no idea if this is been touched before but the problem seems to be that the aggressor corp can use the War Dec system to grief because they have nothing to lose from a War Dec.
Why not make part of the fee paid to War Dec a prize? If the aggressor kills more than they lose or forces the defender to capitulate, they get a rebate of part of the War Dec fee. If the defender kills more or the aggressor gives up the War Dec, the defender wins the ISK.
I would expect a little more thought on the mechanics of determining who wins or loses, maybe aggressor needs to destroy 1.5x what the defender destroys. And you could measure in ship value or ship m3 or number of ships - let's find an appropriate metric.
The core is - get the aggressor to put some skin in the game. Make it hurt to War Dec and lose. The amount doesn't need to be huge because the hurt will be the idea that the defender corp gets the cash. Nobody wants to pay money to the target.
Yes the defender could just dock up. Well, then the aggressor better find a POS or something to kill or lose his cash. That is the risk the aggressor takes in starting a war. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
668
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
I have a question:
If someone formed a corp of say 100 or so alt accounts, would they be able to make a viable occupation of just offering members to corps getting dec'ed to drive up the costs of the aggressor?
Seems like this could be a big problem.
|
|
Poetic Stanziel
The Fancy Hats Corporation
850
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 00:11:00 -
[331] - Quote
Better money-making would be to create an Alliance called Decshield LLC. and then offer membership to corporations for 5-10M ISK per month. Such an alliance should be able to balloon to 10K members quite quickly. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
FlamesOfHeaven
Sarif Digital Augmentation Research
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 00:16:00 -
[332] - Quote
This is good stuff, force the high sec corps to actually group in alliances and maybe one day their head will actually switch on and think "hey, we got a decent amout of ppl and pvpers to actually try out lowsec/nullsec "...
|
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 01:07:00 -
[333] - Quote
Geister Bob wrote:Size of defender corp is a modifier for cost of war. More expensive for a bigger corp. You are paying for more war targets. small (5man corps) are almost never decc'd. Therefore helps expand war.
This of course should be the other way around! The agressor should pay a fee based on the number of members the agressing corp has. Otherwise it will be an extorsion-fest for the griefing, bigger corps. Also: during the war, members of the agressing corp can leave, but none can join. (Corp being decced: maybe other way around...) I agree. It does kind of encourage zerging smaller corps.
Wolfgang Helm wrote:The problem seems to be that the aggressor corp can use the War Dec system to grief because they have nothing to lose from a War Dec.
Why not make part of the fee paid to War Dec a prize? If the aggressor kills more than they lose or forces the defender to capitulate, they get a rebate of part of the War Dec fee. If the defender kills more or the aggressor gives up the War Dec, the defender wins the ISK.
I would expect a little more thought on the mechanics of determining who wins or loses, maybe aggressor needs to destroy 1.5x what the defender destroys. And you could measure in ship value or ship m3 or number of ships - let's find an appropriate metric.
The core is - get the aggressor to put some skin in the game. Make it hurt to War Dec and lose. The amount doesn't need to be huge because the hurt will be the idea that the defender corp gets the cash. Nobody wants to pay money to the target.
Yes the defender could just dock up. Well, then the aggressor better find a POS or something to kill or lose his cash. That is the risk the aggressor takes in starting a war. In other words you want people to be rewarded for completely avoiding risk. Go back to WoW. |
Iamien
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
193
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 15:10:00 -
[334] - Quote
This went so well. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |