| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
103
   |
Posted - 2012.04.10 19:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Coolsmoke wrote: But the message I'm trying to put across is that War is a horribly complex thing, and the current mechanics are too simple to make it work properly. It doesn't need to be complex. The reason it is complex is because CCP makes lots of rules around it trying to control the results way too much for a Sandbox game.
^^
Across everything, not just wardecs. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
104
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quote:The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp.
More importantly, what incentive will there be for a corp that isn't a dedicated PvP corp to accept a war dec and not just hole up for a couple of weeks? |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
104
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
So late in the thread that it probably won't get noticed, but the current problem with highsec war is obvious if you look at it:
There is no benefit for a carebear corp in defending from a war by conventional means. There is nothing in the PvP war equation that matters to them in any positive respect.
How do you get people to agree to do something when the best case outcome for them is they didn't lose anything today?
How do you provide an incentive for them to actually fight back, when they obviously don't care about PvP stats? |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
104
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 21:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:So late in the thread that it probably won't get noticed, but the current problem with highsec war is obvious if you look at it:
There is no benefit for a carebear corp in defending from a war by conventional means. There is nothing in the PvP war equation that matters to them in any positive respect.
How do you get people to agree to do something when the best case outcome for them is they didn't lose anything today?
How do you provide an incentive for them to actually fight back, when they obviously don't care about PvP stats? PvP stats aren't the only reasons to go to war in this game, nor are they the only reasons to defend yourself from legal aggression. Industrial corps might have to defend a tower, mining corps might have to defend their right to mine in a certain system, missioners might have to defend their right to mission in a certain hub, a P.I. farmer might have to defend their right to access a planet, etc... The problem has nothing to do with incentive. Victim mentality is the only thing that prevents a corp from fighting back. Griefing in this game is generally a very specific subset of PvP, and is far from the only reason to go to war. The new wardeck system has some flaws, as pointed out multiple times, but it provides many more tools to fight back.
I note that apart from defending a POS (which again is preventing loss, not actually gaining anything), all of the other goals you list are best attained by evading war *by any means* rather than engaging in it since there is no way to decisively win any of them.
If BillCo declares war on me, and I blow up ALL their ships they'll probably let the war drop. I'll wait a bit for you to stop laughing. You know that's not how it works.
SImply put, there is no victory state. Not even a temporary one.
When presented with an unwinnable scenario the rational choice is to avoid it, if the game is set up that the unwinnable scenario is also unavoidable, people will still avoid it by any means at their disposal.
This is actually something that WoW does *right*, but they have to enforce factions with no trade relations between them to reduce the exploitability. You beat another player and you get a token with value for doing so. With fully open trade there are obvious exploits to this, which is why we don't have such things here. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
105
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 16:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Actually Thunk, trollbaiting is just as destructive to constructive conversation as trolling itself.
Total waste of bandwidth.
Maybe you have some idea on how to put proper victory conditions into the war system to draw the carebears out of their dens?
That would be awesome, but I haven't come up with a good one there that isn't obviously exploitable yet. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
He nails the problem right on the head, and his solution is certainly the closest I've seen to something that would work, but there's still something less than satisfying about his solution that I can't quite put a finger on. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Doh, I wish i could figure out sentences like this: "it can't be good for EVE that the best course of action during a war is to log off and play another game for the duration."There you have it, CCP, better than how I could express it. I've seen alliances logoff and play something else when attacked. Maybe CCP should delete ships and concentrate on Walking in Stations and player clothing. I can meet up with you and we can compare outfits (mine will be considerably better and much more expensive)
When presented with a situation that has no victory condition it is human nature to avoid it completely if at all possible.
If CCP makes EvE war unwinnable for the defender and unavoidable with in-game mechanics, that only leaves one way to avoid it, and people will take that path in direct proportion to how many people take advantage of the attacking side.
And there do exist people playing on-line games for whom getting people to quit the game is the ultimate victory. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
107
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 22:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:
If CCP makes EvE war unwinnable for the defender and unavoidable with in-game mechanics, that only leaves one way to avoid it, and people will take that path in direct proportion to how many people take advantage of the attacking side.
Move to one of several variations of eve space where wardecs are meaningless? Quote:And there do exist people playing on-line games for whom getting people to quit the game is the ultimate victory. lol oh
If CCP didn't intend to have people in the game who prefer to play in highsec over all the other venues, why did they put so many resources into it?
Whether you like it or not, Nick, not everyone who plays EvE is playing the same game with the same goals you are, that's the whole point of a sandbox game. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
129
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 12:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
I see a fallacy cropping up repeatedly here that highsec is a place for new or inexperienced players.
That just isn't so.
Highsec is the free trade zone of the game, and if you think we don't need one ask yourself why there aren't more NRDS nullsec alliances with sovereignty.
Fix NRDS and we don't need highsec anymore, until then everyone in the game needs it. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
130
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:I see a fallacy cropping up repeatedly here that highsec is a place for new or inexperienced players.
That just isn't so.
Highsec is the free trade zone of the game, and if you think we don't need one ask yourself why there aren't more NRDS nullsec alliances with sovereignty.
Fix NRDS and we don't need highsec anymore, until then everyone in the game needs it. It is not a fallacy. There has to be space for new, inexperienced players and for people to recover from large losses. This applies to anybody. You also obviously can not apply different rules to people based on their age/experience.
There has to be a place where people can trade.
This means a place that everyone can go, regardless of experience, skill, and who their friends are.
We don't need a "noob zone", we need a "neutral zone" where anyone is welcome (even if they're enemies with each other). |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
131
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 14:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
bornaa wrote:So... all in all... CCP is going to **** up this game for majority of its players.
I hope they've changed their minds by now on some of the changes in the Dev blog.
Those ideas are based around the concept of making avoiding war more difficult, when any change to war mechanics that is going to actually resonate with the players will involve making engaging in war more enticing. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
134
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I like the scaling of cost with member number.
Why should it be more expensive to dec two 50 member corps over one 100 member corp?
Administrative costs. Your wardec needs to be distributed to all CONCORD ships in space, you know. |
| |
|