These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Severian Carnifex
#781 - 2012-04-16 22:26:57 UTC
bornaa wrote:
You guys read the article on massively about this subject, published earlier today???
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/04/15/eve-evolved-fixing-the-wardec-system/

I think it have some good points (maybe the best).


Comments???



About all this "War" expansion.
I don't see any War related changes that are worth its expansion.
All I see is war related patch.

CCP put whole DEV team on war changes and what we are going to get?
We are going to get few formula tweeks and that's really it... UghUghUgh
And where is that DEV time then spent?

If they made wars like this it would actually give EVE some real new fun gameplay.
Fun gameplay in EVE Shocked
Something new in EVE Shocked
No way...
...so we will not see it.
Severian Carnifex
#782 - 2012-04-16 22:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
betoli wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
bornaa wrote:
You guys read the article on massively about this subject, published earlier today???
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/04/15/eve-evolved-fixing-the-wardec-system/

I think it have some good points (maybe the best).


Comments???



As I understand the logic is:
before war you must build war command structure - if its destroyed, war is over.


Overall, I like this proposal.
It gives meaning to wars.
It gives actual mechanics for attacking, defending, attacker and defender can loose, you have something to fight for, defender have mean to end war, attacker cant just war dec and not log in on that char for few days (or ever), attacker need to actually be a part of war it started, everybody can win or loose.


It seems a rather obvious solution... but it raises more questions than the article addresses.

- Where does the structure get placed?

- How hard is the structure to kill?

The salient point is that there needs to *some* element of HS war, that doesn't have the ability to logoff or dockup in order to keep at least one side regularly in space. But the follow on questions - it is survivable enough that it can't be achieved whilst one side is asleep in bed, but is killable enough so that a weak corp actually has the resources to kill it. Thats not so easy when you think about it.

For the lulz, if the defenders are indy types, perhaps a giant asteroid that the defenders have to completely mine in order to win. :-)



You can tweek it around.
I think CCP have many many data how to do it gathered by implementing POCOs.
So, i think, no much HP, but some sort of reinforce timer, but CCP would know the best.
And where, somewhere where everybody can access - maybe near defenders corps HQ?
(near is something that again CCP can tell what it is).
That way everybody needs to guard and defend something (defender POS (in most cases) and attacker this)
And attacker choose to attack so attacker must show have more devotion to the cause so its easier to kill its structure then POS. And its logical, deployable structures are more vulnerable to attacks.

If you want to kill someones game, you must show devotion to do it.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#783 - 2012-04-16 23:08:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Hammond II
lol

Quote:
Change the war dec cost formula so that the cost is no longer increased by the number of wars target corp is in. Instead, the cost is modified by the number of players in target corp.


sucks for new corps then

looks more balanced to the agressor.... fun for the gankers

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#784 - 2012-04-17 02:06:12 UTC
As opposed to the 2 million per week you pay now?

puh-leeeze....

I run one whole L4 mission , and I can afford to wardec at least one start-up per week.

I am also a highbear, who runs missions for a "living" in EVE. I also do not use plex, but actually pay to play. Single account, no alts.

This gives me a window of [how much?] Fun and Games when it comes to wardeccing?

[Omit trade "secrets" on how to comfortably run L4's and even L5's in lowsec while being permadecced, because I lived through them.]

Do get a grip, and please do grow up. Wars pretty much cannot get more pointless, and unwinnable, than they are now.

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#785 - 2012-04-17 02:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career.

It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds.
Matrix Operator
#786 - 2012-04-17 04:04:25 UTC
bornaa wrote:
You guys read the article on massively about this subject, published earlier today???
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/04/15/eve-evolved-fixing-the-wardec-system/

I think it have some good points (maybe the best).


Comments???


Good points.

Here's another way of restating the problem. The stakes for the aggressor are almost always very very low if not nil. While the stakes of the defender are almost always much higher.

We need to make the stakes for the aggressor a little higher to balance things out. How about a collateral system, where, the aggressor faces some sort of plenalty or loss if they don't get the dec'd corp to surrender in the week the dec is active. The aggressor has the choice then of continuing the war, so facing loss of the collateral.

The collateral can be something like loss of docking rights in the dec corps systems or forfeited offices for 1 month. Other possibilities include forfeiteed PCCOs, POSs. Or a percentage of the aggessors wallet isk if deleted for loosing the war or something along those lines.
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#787 - 2012-04-17 05:30:31 UTC  |  Edited by: roboto212
roboto212 wrote:
New war dec mechanic that works(IMHO). This would still use the changes as proposed by CCP for inferno but removes the increase cost based on player numbers on defenders side. Also adds a new mechanic as listed. And limits the number of allies per war to 1

War dec structure attacker sets total goal value of assets destroyed to an isk value ranging from 1-x.
This number is multiplied by 1.5 and resulting number equals defenders target isk assets value to destroy. The number set by attacker is then divided by a number determined by ccp of say 5.
The surrender value is then multiplied by 20-30% again determined by ccp resulting in a bond value. This amount must be paid to concord as escrow on top of a flat war dec cost of 20mil for corps and 50mil for alliances.

How the war progresses for a defender. If the defender destroys assets equal to there target value they then may at any time chose to end the war resulting in a 24 hour timer. If the defender chose to finish the war for the week then Half the bonded would then be deposited into there corp or alliance wallet. Defender may bring in 1 Allie in to the war.

How the war progresses for the attacker. If the attacking corp destroys there target amount and defender does not destroy there target amount they receive the full bond back. If they fail to destroy there target value as well as the defender they receive half the bond back and the other half is forfeited to concord. If both parties destroy target amount then half is paid to defender and half is returned to aggressor.

In case of war being set mutual in the first 24 hours then value to be destroyed is set to infinity. And no allies can be invited to join the defender. Wars can not be set mutual after the first 24 hours.

At the end of the week if the attacker wishes to continue the war a new bond is posted equal the value of the previous on and weekly total of assets destroyed is reset.

Additionally any player leaving a corporation during the war would remain a war target for 24 hours and would be in a 24 hour stasis from rejoining the corporation or any corporation in the alliance.
As an example if A declared war on B then A would set target value of assets to be destroyed. Say 2.5bil this would set B's target value at 3.75bil and the bond at 150mil plus war dec fee of 20 or 50 mil depending on if a was a corp or alliance.

A larger example would be A sets target at 200bil. Then B would have to destroy 300bil with a bond of 12bil plus the 20 or 50 mil war dec fee.


How it would work for low sec so they would have a reason to use it there would be value of assets destroyed would only count for 40-60% of there value for goal tracking purposes.

For null sec assets destroyed would be valued at 0% for goals so that war dec tracking could be used cheaply by null sec or not with out concern for expensive war dec cost they have no need of in null.

To sum it up target goals for both sides. If defender fights they can get half the isk or end the war early and cost the attacker ISK. If the aggressor fights effectively and sets proper goals they can get there war cheaply and meet there objectives.

some people have suggested removing the surrender option and i am considering it to very large extent.


quoted with suggested changes made
Avila Cracko
#788 - 2012-04-17 05:46:15 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career.

It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds.



And maybe he just played some other, actually fun and entertaining MMO.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#789 - 2012-04-17 06:15:56 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career.

It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds.



And maybe he just played some other, actually fun and entertaining MMO.


Maybe he and the rest of you that support such ideas should GTFO of EVE and go play those MMOs.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#790 - 2012-04-17 06:50:35 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career.

It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds.


It is interesting how every troll in the thread completely opposes the article. Sometimes you can tell who's right just by knowing who opposes him...

There's been several different sources telling how at the wardec roundtable, the developers present apparently weren't 100% aware on how wars are used and very specially how they are abused in EVE.

And the current wardec proposal is so faulty that just reinforces the feeling that nobody CCP has never been exposed to being a defender in a grief war: You can't win, you can't opt out, and you can't avoid it. Does this look like a "fun" game mechanic to anyone? Would you play a game where being deprived of playing for a week is a "game mechanic"?
No07
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#791 - 2012-04-17 07:26:46 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


And the current wardec proposal is so faulty that just reinforces the feeling that nobody CCP has never been exposed to being a defender in a grief war: You can't win, you can't opt out, and you can't avoid it. Does this look like a "fun" game mechanic to anyone? Would you play a game where being deprived of playing for a week is a "game mechanic"?



Indeed.

CCP, please. This is just plain wrong. You need to get back to the drawing board and start again.

If nothing else, please add just one mechanism to protect small corps.

For exampel, if a corp A wardecc corp B and there are no kills during a week, the war is ended.

Or whatever, just add some goddamn mechanism to protect the small indy corps with no interest in pvp.

But you should actually consider very carefully if the wardecc system has any reason to exist at all. Just add some feature that allows null-sec alliances to wage war against each other in high-sec as well and everyone should be happy. I mean, they are the ones with the money to pay mercs anyway.

And why should it be almost free of charge to wardecc tiny corps? While at the same time you make it so large corps will not be wardecced? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

7
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#792 - 2012-04-17 08:32:04 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
It is interesting how every troll in the thread completely opposes the article. Sometimes you can tell who's right just by knowing who opposes him...


Interesting way of stating "I have the mighty stick of Right-eousness, and whatever I say is true".
Kindergarten Debating 101 : thataway ---->

Quote:
There's been several different sources telling how at the wardec roundtable, the developers present apparently weren't 100% aware on how wars are used and very specially how they are abused in EVE.


Link if you quote sources in an argument please, some people do not have the time to trawl the 'net for every bit of opinionated Rageblogging about EVE. Although I'd be surprised if you can come up with an original source who does not belong to any of the lobby camps pushing for a specific change.
But wasn't that the same roundtable where one or two people ragequit when their "abuse" was classified as "working as intended" by said Devs?

Quote:
And the current wardec proposal is so faulty that just reinforces the feeling that nobody CCP has never been exposed to being a defender in a grief war: You can't win, you can't opt out, and you can't avoid it. Does this look like a "fun" game mechanic to anyone? Would you play a game where being deprived of playing for a week is a "game mechanic"?


Your first sentence there is just loaded speculation. CCP personnel are under strict orders not to reveal the fact that they are CCP employees while playing on TQ. Failing to do so will cost you your job, as CCP does not want a repeat of a certain nasty episode. As a result, rumours of dev-alts are exactly that.
If any of the Dev-alts were ever to be confirmed, they might as well kill of that alt, because everybody and their dog would be after them to pad their killboard with a confirmed Dev-kill on TQ.

Now, opting out of wars, grief- or otherwise, has never been an option, and even the current way of "avoidance" by exploiting a rather involved rule/timer issue with alliance code is only allowed because ultimately it will not matter as the new system will not have an opt-out option.
This besides the fact that all that lovely hopping in and out of decshield alliances is quite visible and trackable, so all those corps using them are actually advertising their willingness to a royal rogering once the new wardec code goes live.

Avoiding grief-decs altogether is indeed quite impossible. Mind, so is avoiding gravity, or taxes.
At the current pricing there will always be one set of idiots who are bored, and will try to see if there's a piñata around. The new pricing will make highsec wardeccing much more expensive, so overall there will be less grief-decs.
Unless, of course, you've been using those lovely decshields, announcing HERE IS THE PIÑATA to all and sundry.

And you can most definitely Win a grief-dec. It does require acknowledging that EVE is not Skyrim-in-Space, that unfriendly attention is a given, and preparing for the fact. This means training actual combat skills ( I know, the Horror...Shocked [/sarc] ) and practicing them a bit.
It's amazing how quickly lol-deccers drop a war if there is any chance their precious killboards are polluted by losses to "carebears".
It's also relatively easy to make that happen, even with low-SP toons, if you prepare. [/me points back to EVE not being Skyrim-in-Space]

As for "not being able to play for a week" .... That's self-inflicted.

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
Din Tempre
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#793 - 2012-04-17 09:05:11 UTC
Grikath wrote:


Now, opting out of wars, grief- or otherwise, has never been an option, and even the current way of "avoidance" by exploiting a rather involved rule/timer issue with alliance code is only allowed because ultimately it will not matter as the new system will not have an opt-out option.
This besides the fact that all that lovely hopping in and out of decshield alliances is quite visible and trackable, so all those corps using them are actually advertising their willingness to a royal rogering once the new wardec code goes live.

Avoiding grief-decs altogether is indeed quite impossible. Mind, so is avoiding gravity, or taxes.
At the current pricing there will always be one set of idiots who are bored, and will try to see if there's a piñata around. The new pricing will make highsec wardeccing much more expensive, so overall there will be less grief-decs.
Unless, of course, you've been using those lovely decshields, announcing HERE IS THE PIÑATA to all and sundry.

And you can most definitely Win a grief-dec. It does require acknowledging that EVE is not Skyrim-in-Space, that unfriendly attention is a given, and preparing for the fact. This means training actual combat skills ( I know, the Horror...Shocked [/sarc] ) and practicing them a bit.
It's amazing how quickly lol-deccers drop a war if there is any chance their precious killboards are polluted by losses to "carebears".
It's also relatively easy to make that happen, even with low-SP toons, if you prepare. [/me points back to EVE not being Skyrim-in-Space]

As for "not being able to play for a week" .... That's self-inflicted.


I'm not sure how serious you are so let's be honest here. I've been exposed to the war dec system. Most of these people choose their targets carefully, i.e. zero risk. Actually wanting to participate in the SIS fun, I got a group to engage the aggressor corp anyway (despite the CEO's advice to wait it out, train a long skill, etc). I wouldn't really call it a fight when the other side has the ISK and the SP to crush us 1 to 1; they stopped bringing the T2 ships when they realized they were beyond overkill. Worse yet, our losses hurt more, since it was our "main" accounts and we were stuck back in a station. The only fun either side had out of it was when some members agreed to private matches using certain fitting restriction. Let me repeat that: the only time EITHER side enjoyed the experience was when we ignored the current mechanics and made up our own.

The system is horribly broken. There needs to be *some* system to force churn on POS locations. But you can't really do anything else with the current mechanic besides grief. It isn't even possible to force them to move offices if you are so inclined. Making it easier for the larger corp is ass backwards. EVE may be unfriendly, but if it isn't fun, what's the point? I could give all my ISK away to a Jita scammer, or self-destruct all my ships and that would be about as much fun as being camped into a station with no way to deter the aggressor. And if they are 2000 strong, they can't even be retaliated against unless they choose the wrong target, in which case they just end the war.

The system is bad. This "Expansion" makes it worse. I don't even live in high-sec anymore and I am repulsed by the suggestion that this is a "fun" change. The tweaks to break up gate camping and station docking games are welcome. Back to the drawing board with this War system though, which is supposedly the heart of Inferno.
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#794 - 2012-04-17 09:54:30 UTC
Din Tempre wrote:
I'm not sure how serious you are so let's be honest here. I've been exposed to the war dec system. Most of these people choose their targets carefully, i.e. zero risk. Actually wanting to participate in the SIS fun, I got a group to engage the aggressor corp anyway (despite the CEO's advice to wait it out, train a long skill, etc). I wouldn't really call it a fight when the other side has the ISK and the SP to crush us 1 to 1; they stopped bringing the T2 ships when they realized they were beyond overkill. Worse yet, our losses hurt more, since it was our "main" accounts and we were stuck back in a station. The only fun either side had out of it was when some members agreed to private matches using certain fitting restriction. Let me repeat that: the only time EITHER side enjoyed the experience was when we ignored the current mechanics and made up our own.


I'm quite serious, actually. And yes, I, and at the time my corp, has been at the receiving end of griefdecs, even to the point of having been permadecced for roughly 6 months, so I may have a bit of experience in the matter.
Was it all a success? Hell, no. There's a quite steep learning curve there, and in the beginning we did flail horribly. In just about the same way you described.

We did learn though, and had fun doing so after shaking the fluff from the corp, and taking advice from people who obviously knew what they were doing.
The hardest thing to learn is to unlearn the "holing up" strategy.
Oh, and to stop being silly enough to give griefers anything like a "fair fight".

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
Din Tempre
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#795 - 2012-04-17 10:17:53 UTC
Grikath wrote:


I'm quite serious, actually. And yes, I, and at the time my corp, has been at the receiving end of griefdecs, even to the point of having been permadecced for roughly 6 months, so I may have a bit of experience in the matter.
Was it all a success? Hell, no. There's a quite steep learning curve there, and in the beginning we did flail horribly. In just about the same way you described.

We did learn though, and had fun doing so after shaking the fluff from the corp, and taking advice from people who obviously knew what they were doing.
The hardest thing to learn is to unlearn the "holing up" strategy.
Oh, and to stop being silly enough to give griefers anything like a "fair fight".


I'm just curious, do you even realize how ridiculous you make the system sound in your supposed praise? You were forced to stay in a war for 6 months (the length of an average EVE career, statistically I believe), your corp was torn apart, and you had to reinvent your play-style. At which point the griefers just effortlessly move on to a new victim with no consequences. And what is the point of this system again? Hazing? It's a video game, specifically designed as a sandbox for diverse goals and ways of having fun.

I am not denying you enjoyed the experience. But I must flatly reject that it was a beneficial way to gain it. Furthermore, I am curious how you managed to afford new ships to replace those you lost through all that flailing? If you are 2-3 months in the game and paying by sub, you are probably not rolling in ISK, especially if mission are denied to you. Furthermore, this new system almost guarantees the unfair advantage will belong to the aggressor, who holds all the cards to the duration (for if they drop the dec, it's still more expensive for the victim to maintain it).

All I am getting from your posts are you deny there is a problem because you learned to be a better pvp pilot without having to leave high-sec. I am not arguing there should be a way to avoid pvp entirely. I just hope that we can get a much better system than the garbage proposed by CCP here.

Allies, mercs, and getting rid of station/gate games fine. Further protecting a griefing corp? Makes no sense at all.
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#796 - 2012-04-17 12:45:10 UTC
Din Tempre wrote:
I'm just curious, do you even realize how ridiculous you make the system sound in your supposed praise? You were forced to stay in a war for 6 months (the length of an average EVE career, statistically I believe), your corp was torn apart, and you had to reinvent your play-style. At which point the griefers just effortlessly move on to a new victim with no consequences. And what is the point of this system again? Hazing? It's a video game, specifically designed as a sandbox for diverse goals and ways of having fun.


You are quite mistaken in the assumption that my corp was torn apart...
I stated we got rid of the fluff. Which means that anyone who was not willing to participate in the corp-wide effort of Defending Our Stuffz was booted by me personally. Accompanied by loud cheers of the members who were willing to make a stand together.
It made our corp much stronger, and quite a few people of that time are either still in corp, or happily pursuing their interests in low/null, dropping by for a chat on occasion even after all the time that has passed since then.
How does this translate as "being torn apart"?

You also make it sound as if reinventing your playstyle is a bad thing.
If a method does not work, you adapt and change, or perish. If the rules change, you adapt and change or you perish. This is the harsh truth of evolution in a sandbox, just as much as it is in Real Life.
We did not just reinvent, we also expanded on our options, to ensure we could happily go on making our ISKies in ways we liked, while giving our darling griefers a run for their ISK, and a nice chase all over New Eden.

Quote:
Furthermore, I am curious how you managed to afford new ships to replace those you lost through all that flailing? If you are 2-3 months in the game and paying by sub, you are probably not rolling in ISK, especially if mission are denied to you.


Stop depending on PLEX for your habit, and actually sub your account. Saves you a lot of ISKies.
Missions can only be denied when and if you insist on being predictable, and like a proper carebear only fly the main mission hubs with the "best" agents. There's the whole of new Eden to play around in, after all.
You support your "younger" players, in many, many ways, so they can hero-rifter asap, making sure they get credit for any kills they assisted in. This reduces their cash crunch, and makes them useful.
At the time L5's still ended up in highsec, and those could be easily blobbed for rather impressive LP amounts in a very short time, if you picked the right ones. LP --> ?? --> profit --> iskies for replacements.
With a bit of luck you can even salvage, which gave us some nice mineral income from the drone mishes.
When missioning in general: team up, blitz through, cash in, shift system. Makes for nice tourist runs.
Jumpclones, they are lovely. Many, many uses.
Cooperation with friendly individuals not in corp to ensure deliveries and stuff.
Judicial manufacturing/trading can make you or the corp a tidy profit.

Plenty of ways, really.


Quote:
All I am getting from your posts are you deny there is a problem because you learned to be a better pvp pilot without having to leave high-sec.


I have never denied there are issues with the current and proposed wardec system.
What I am denying is that what some people see as a problem, specifically the "problem" of getting wardecced to begin with, actually exists, except maybe in their attitude towards playing a game that is set up for combat pvp from the start.

If people ignore this, and insist on playing Skyrim-in-Space with several accounts in a player corp depending on ISK income for PLEX to maintain their playing style, they do have a problem, but it's not in any game mechanic. They're simply playing the wrong game.

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#797 - 2012-04-17 12:49:33 UTC
Grikath wrote:
Din Tempre wrote:
I'm not sure how serious you are so let's be honest here. I've been exposed to the war dec system. Most of these people choose their targets carefully, i.e. zero risk. Actually wanting to participate in the SIS fun, I got a group to engage the aggressor corp anyway (despite the CEO's advice to wait it out, train a long skill, etc). I wouldn't really call it a fight when the other side has the ISK and the SP to crush us 1 to 1; they stopped bringing the T2 ships when they realized they were beyond overkill. Worse yet, our losses hurt more, since it was our "main" accounts and we were stuck back in a station. The only fun either side had out of it was when some members agreed to private matches using certain fitting restriction. Let me repeat that: the only time EITHER side enjoyed the experience was when we ignored the current mechanics and made up our own.


I'm quite serious, actually. And yes, I, and at the time my corp, has been at the receiving end of griefdecs, even to the point of having been permadecced for roughly 6 months, so I may have a bit of experience in the matter.
Was it all a success? Hell, no. There's a quite steep learning curve there, and in the beginning we did flail horribly. In just about the same way you described.

We did learn though, and had fun doing so after shaking the fluff from the corp, and taking advice from people who obviously knew what they were doing.
The hardest thing to learn is to unlearn the "holing up" strategy.
Oh, and to stop being silly enough to give griefers anything like a "fair fight".


They told you to play the game their way or go away, and it turned that you actually wanted to play the game their way. Which turns your whole point useless to people who doesn't want to play your way.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#798 - 2012-04-17 15:52:11 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Grikath wrote:
Din Tempre wrote:
I'm not sure how serious you are so let's be honest here. I've been exposed to the war dec system. Most of these people choose their targets carefully, i.e. zero risk. Actually wanting to participate in the SIS fun, I got a group to engage the aggressor corp anyway (despite the CEO's advice to wait it out, train a long skill, etc). I wouldn't really call it a fight when the other side has the ISK and the SP to crush us 1 to 1; they stopped bringing the T2 ships when they realized they were beyond overkill. Worse yet, our losses hurt more, since it was our "main" accounts and we were stuck back in a station. The only fun either side had out of it was when some members agreed to private matches using certain fitting restriction. Let me repeat that: the only time EITHER side enjoyed the experience was when we ignored the current mechanics and made up our own.


I'm quite serious, actually. And yes, I, and at the time my corp, has been at the receiving end of griefdecs, even to the point of having been permadecced for roughly 6 months, so I may have a bit of experience in the matter.
Was it all a success? Hell, no. There's a quite steep learning curve there, and in the beginning we did flail horribly. In just about the same way you described.

We did learn though, and had fun doing so after shaking the fluff from the corp, and taking advice from people who obviously knew what they were doing.
The hardest thing to learn is to unlearn the "holing up" strategy.
Oh, and to stop being silly enough to give griefers anything like a "fair fight".


They told you to play the game their way or go away, and it turned that you actually wanted to play the game their way. Which turns your whole point useless to people who doesn't want to play your way.


Yet you have no problem asking CCP to tell other people how play the game for your benefit either.
Din Tempre
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#799 - 2012-04-17 16:20:05 UTC
Manssell wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Grikath wrote:
Din Tempre wrote:
I'm not sure how serious you are so let's be honest here. I've been exposed to the war dec system. Most of these people choose their targets carefully, i.e. zero risk. Actually wanting to participate in the SIS fun, I got a group to engage the aggressor corp anyway (despite the CEO's advice to wait it out, train a long skill, etc). I wouldn't really call it a fight when the other side has the ISK and the SP to crush us 1 to 1; they stopped bringing the T2 ships when they realized they were beyond overkill. Worse yet, our losses hurt more, since it was our "main" accounts and we were stuck back in a station. The only fun either side had out of it was when some members agreed to private matches using certain fitting restriction. Let me repeat that: the only time EITHER side enjoyed the experience was when we ignored the current mechanics and made up our own.


I'm quite serious, actually. And yes, I, and at the time my corp, has been at the receiving end of griefdecs, even to the point of having been permadecced for roughly 6 months, so I may have a bit of experience in the matter.
Was it all a success? Hell, no. There's a quite steep learning curve there, and in the beginning we did flail horribly. In just about the same way you described.

We did learn though, and had fun doing so after shaking the fluff from the corp, and taking advice from people who obviously knew what they were doing.
The hardest thing to learn is to unlearn the "holing up" strategy.
Oh, and to stop being silly enough to give griefers anything like a "fair fight".


They told you to play the game their way or go away, and it turned that you actually wanted to play the game their way. Which turns your whole point useless to people who doesn't want to play your way.


Yet you have no problem asking CCP to tell other people how play the game for your benefit either.


If there is only one way to win, the sandbox doesn't exist. There is the start of a good idea by letting corps contract out their defense fleet. We have to look at the major complaint here. Rich, old players are allowed to pay-to-grief poor, new players, and the targeted corp has no real recourse. Face it, EVE is not set up to let a group of low SP pilots take out a decent gang of high SP pilots. I don't think it makes any sense to ask people to wait 6 months for skills to train so they can fight back. If the aggressor corp has a lvl 4 locator agent and the same timezone/playtime, are the new players forced to change their schedule just to avoid people feeding on the "lolz"?
Agnostos Theos
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#800 - 2012-04-17 16:44:03 UTC
Luka Datitties wrote:
There are many small corps who have a POS in high sec. They are small for standings reasons, so ballooning up will defeat the purpose.

..........

A lot of cottage businesses will go under from griefers with wars that can go on forever. If you pay for surrender other corps will come to the well over and over again in a giant extortion ring.


Working as intended.... well maybe not... but it's about time they made a start on something like this.

So far from what I've seen the new war mechanics is a decisive move to force players to band together on a scale unprecedented. Those unable or unwilling to do so have the option of joining an NPC corp and putting up with the limitations such a move imposes.

There are thousands of those god awful pos' all over high sec, completely imune to any form of destruction under the curent mechanics, each and every one of them chipping away at the profit margins my industrial trading complex has spent years developing, refining and maintaining. I'd see each and every one of those 'cottage businesses' nuked out of existance.

I'm more then prepared to utilise my profits towards driving competetors out of the market.
Further more it gives those people heavily invested in (risk free) non-consensual PvP something to do other then run around indiscriminatly griefing what-ever idiot they manage to catch doing something stupid.

Yes, this will **** off a lot of people that want to run their own private little corp quietly making their own private little profit. GOOD !
Those private little bastards that like to pretend they're no harm and no threat to anyone are my biggest gripe. They're stealing my profit margin and for too long I've had no way to remove the cancer.

Eventually those little enterprises will be forced into banding together to the point they're interesting and competative or they're worth absorbing into a real industrial complex.
I'm all for the end of game mechanics which have been a death to real industry via a million little paper-cuts.