These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec matters once again

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#261 - 2015-04-04 14:02:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
Removing Lvl4 missions will just push people to do Lvl3 missions instead.


Neat.

But in the meantime, the people who do choose a more risky path will be commensurately rewarded for doing so, as opposed to now where they are not.

That is important, whether the truly risk averse change or not, the people who are willing to accept risk should be better off.

If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#262 - 2015-04-04 14:15:44 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?


I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance)

Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#263 - 2015-04-04 22:49:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?


I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance)

Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.


Don't stop there, make the belt rats tougher too. Even the ewar belt rats are barely an annoyance for a couple of t1 combat drones. And have the rats show up at gates and stations too! Try mining during an incursion, that would be the limit of hisec rats. Aside from the Drifters/Seekers ofcTwisted

On the far end of rebalance you could have mission beacons pop in ship scanners (like the cosmic anomalies do). You wouldn't have to nerf any mission income, due to the increased risks. This may or may not play into the proposed structures that were announced.


I really only do missions for standings, LP and salvage. Lvl4s are far and away the best for that. I do recognize mission runners needing the income source from bounties to sustain their gameplay however.
Sandbox for everyone...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#264 - 2015-04-04 22:57:08 UTC
They honestly should be on gates, I have to agree. Code should not be the only thing keeping you from autopiloting afk.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#265 - 2015-04-05 00:32:43 UTC
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?


I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance)

Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.


Don't stop there, make the belt rats tougher too. Even the ewar belt rats are barely an annoyance for a couple of t1 combat drones. And have the rats show up at gates and stations too! Try mining during an incursion, that would be the limit of hisec rats. Aside from the Drifters/Seekers ofcTwisted

On the far end of rebalance you could have mission beacons pop in ship scanners (like the cosmic anomalies do). You wouldn't have to nerf any mission income, due to the increased risks. This may or may not play into the proposed structures that were announced.


I really only do missions for standings, LP and salvage. Lvl4s are far and away the best for that. I do recognize mission runners needing the income source from bounties to sustain their gameplay however.
Sandbox for everyone...



Lets not stop there, lets have npc'c also attack null-sec on a whim and unbalance the alliances there.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#266 - 2015-04-05 00:53:48 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Lets not stop there, lets have npc'c also attack null-sec on a whim and unbalance the alliances there.


Drifters.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#267 - 2015-04-05 14:10:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.

Not that I disagree with this but.

Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?

Is it even technically possible for a game AI to be as free "thinking" and as unpredictable on ships used and how they are fit as a payer would be? If not why even bother since it robs the game of a chance for player interactions?

Why should those who enjoy missions have their game play limited by reducing the number of missions they have an opportunity to run?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#268 - 2015-04-05 15:20:48 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?


Wouldn't worry. They're "fitting puzzles" only, literally couldn't be less like PvP.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#269 - 2015-04-05 15:51:25 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?


Mostly so they can't be free farmed with sentry drones by people who are afk.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
The Pink Unicorn
Doomheim
#270 - 2015-04-05 16:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: The Pink Unicorn
I would actually like for a few things for war-decs

1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level
- Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills
- Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves

2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups
- I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.

3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer
- This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abuse-able, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk.

4. War End Timer
- Makes Corps Not able to be declared against after X amount of time after a war has ended. Settable Function for Corp (Like Friendly Fire). I am also on the fence with this for being abuse-able. Perhaps the answer lies in loss count of wars. If a corp looses X Amount of ISK in a war They Can Get a Timer. Perhaps 100Mil per member in corp? If it can be made not abuse-able, this could be a good addition for corps that are repeatedly dec'd and can not get a reprieve.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#271 - 2015-04-05 16:12:33 UTC
The Pink Unicorn wrote:
I would actually like for a few things for war-decs

1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level
- Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills
- Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves

2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups
- I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.

3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer
- This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abusable, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk.


No to all.

Wars need to be stronger, not much, much weaker.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2015-04-06 07:45:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?


Mostly so they can't be free farmed with sentry drones by people who are afk.


You know this changed in 2012 to not work, right?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2015-04-06 09:09:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The Pink Unicorn wrote:
I would actually like for a few things for war-decs

1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level
- Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills
- Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves

2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups
- I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.

3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer
- This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abusable, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk.


No to all.

Wars need to be stronger, not much, much weaker.


Setting our disagreements on various things aside I believe the same but in a different way. I would prefer wars to be made viable rather than something to be avoided. I see no problem with an inferior combat force avoiding war with a superior one as engaging would be pointless,especially if the players do not enjoy PvP. This would be the same as forcing your CODE friends to mine for a week at a time.

I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage. If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out. Likewise if the aggressor doesn't do their homework and dec's a corp who will evaporate then more fool them, they could have done their research to avoid this.

War has to be incentivized, not forced on people otherwise the percentage who might fight back under more even circumstances will never do so. If a major wardec group targets a small corp currently then they will avoid the war at all costs as they do not stand a chance. Corps need a chance in the war to then decide whether they should fight back.

I honestly don't think the changes you ask for would change anything other than the ways in which thise who don't want war manage to avoid it.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2015-04-06 10:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out.


This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all.

A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2015-04-06 12:30:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out.


This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all.

A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS.


I meant I'm fine with that as the current punishment but wouldn't be averse to wardecs following the CEO since they shouldn't be allowed to simply join another corp and use their POS without consequence.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#276 - 2015-04-06 12:44:51 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage.


This is EVE. The only fair fight you are guaranteed is the Alliance Tournament. Everywhere else, fights are only fair if both sides screwed up.

The only way to make every fight even, is to take away the chance for uneven fights. That means handcuffing player freedom, that means the functional removal of non consensual PvP.

I say no.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#277 - 2015-04-06 13:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out.


This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all.

A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS.


I meant I'm fine with that as the current punishment but wouldn't be averse to wardecs following the CEO since they shouldn't be allowed to simply join another corp and use their POS without consequence.


Fair enough, although I hazard that is an extreme edge case, having another set up and running corp to jump to.

One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.

Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.

/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least.

I think wars are a poor way to deal damage to industrial corps, there are better and more effective ways to combat these guys - particularly if they get predictable (why blow up the tower when I can blow up the hauler carrying it via a neutral catalyst?).
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#278 - 2015-04-06 19:26:36 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
afkalt wrote:
One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.

Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.

/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least.

It has no effect on the miners or mission runners. Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases.

If corps get changed to provide real benefits though the N+1 shell corporation method could become a problem. I don't think it's just creative use of game mechanics. You'd be receiving all the benefits of being in a corporation without the risk. It's like getting L5s in highsec because of some trick you did with corp mechanics.

Solutions:
- Place a delay on using structures and their benefits when a player joins a corp.
- All structures become like POCOs. You can't tear them down and you can't transfer them during war. Leave for a shell corp and you lose hundreds of millions or billions each time your previous corp's structures are destroyed.
- Structures only gain persistent bonuses through activity accumulation. The ME or mining cycle modifier on your shell corp's structures are 0 until members of the shell corp use them for some time.

I'd like to see all three introduced in fact. Not just to combat shell corporations but to make your corporation something you've built and something worth fighting for. The bonuses just have to be significant to make it worth defending.

Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
If you really want to nerf hisec income, then ultimately you need to start and end with the market hubs. Move them out of hisec and nerf complete.

This is off topic but I'll bite. You can't remove market hubs from hisec without restricting a very basic level of freedom when it comes to trading. What you can do is increase market fees so it's more worth the risk of buying/selling out in lowsec and nullsec.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2015-04-06 19:49:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage.


This is EVE. The only fair fight you are guaranteed is the Alliance Tournament. Everywhere else, fights are only fair if both sides screwed up.

The only way to make every fight even, is to take away the chance for uneven fights. That means handcuffing player freedom, that means the functional removal of non consensual PvP.

I say no.


I would agree except that if you want to encourage people to engage in war through incentives. One such incentive is that they would actually stand a chance. Otherwise those corps that would simply be stomped on will just find other ways to avoid wars. People can be just as inventive in this as in finding new ways to bring pain to others clones.

Anything else is simply trying to force combat onto others. They should always have the chance to simply avoid combat but this should cost them productivity to as it already does.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-04-06 19:54:38 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
afkalt wrote:
One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.

Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.

/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least.

It has no effect on the miners or mission runners. Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases.

If corps get changed to provide real benefits though the N+1 shell corporation method could become a problem. I don't think it's just creative use of game mechanics. You'd be receiving all the benefits of being in a corporation without the risk. It's like getting L5s in highsec because of some trick you did with corp mechanics.

Solutions:
- Place a delay on using structures and their benefits when a player joins a corp.
- All structures become like POCOs. You can't tear them down and you can't transfer them during war. Leave for a shell corp and you lose hundreds of millions or billions each time your previous corp's structures are destroyed.
- Structures only gain persistent bonuses through activity accumulation. The ME or mining cycle modifier on your shell corp's structures are 0 until members of the shell corp use them for some time.

I'd like to see all three introduced in fact. Not just to combat shell corporations but to make your corporation something you've built and something worth fighting for. The bonuses just have to be significant to make it worth defending.

Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
If you really want to nerf hisec income, then ultimately you need to start and end with the market hubs. Move them out of hisec and nerf complete.

This is off topic but I'll bite. You can't remove market hubs from hisec without restricting a very basic level of freedom when it comes to trading. What you can do is increase market fees so it's more worth the risk of buying/selling out in lowsec and nullsec.


I guess we'll wait ans see how the new structures work here but perhaps there should be an option to anchor permanently for an increase in whatever bonuses the station gives. This would allow small corps to protect initial asets through tearing down and hiding them but would also encourage the formation of larger combat capable corps due to the increased benefits.