These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of Wardecs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#101 - 2013-01-17 23:09:28 UTC
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Im not sure you understand the mechanics of an industrial war as it currently stands.
The point is disruption, that means preventing the victim corp from flying sitting ducks, not killing them.

It doesnt need to go down like a script but you cant remove all (sensible) gameplay from a player and suggest that they have choices beyond not playing, people not playing doesnt help.


I don't think you understand just how much experience I have with decs of every kind. Furthermore, you don't remove any gameplay from a player by going to war with them. If they want to mine, they can, but do so with the knowledge that someone can (and probably will) kill them for it. Am I preventing them from making that decision? Not in any way. This doesn't even include the multitude of options which include mercs, friends, and flat out dropping corp as alternatives to not playing EVE. The people who do that choose to do so, for whatever reason. No dec of any kind forces people to stop playing .
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#102 - 2013-01-17 23:22:26 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:


Thank you for the response. While I completely understand the fact that CCP needs to consider this mechanic from a business sense, I would really like to see actual metrics showing it was a problem before anything was considered to drastically hamstring the mechanics. At the very least, I would like to know that you actually had real metrics rather than wagers and gut feelings before destroying a rather intimate portion of EVE.


Yes, please.

If Trebor just pulled those infamous "90%" out of one of his orifices, then please disregard everything I said in this thread.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Tesal
#103 - 2013-01-17 23:30:33 UTC
CCP was saying that they would rather have a war where both people fight and that is what they want to encourage. Read the text again.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-01-17 23:34:08 UTC
Is one of the CSM members that supported the idea not affiliated with EVE uni?

Does EVE uni not have a long standing policy that NEW RECRUITS SHOULD DOCK DURING WAR?

Yes, and yes.



If solomon wanted to stimulate conversation he should have asked, simply,

How can we encourage people to engage in high sec wars, instead of staying docked or disbanding their corp?



My first answer wold have to stop letting people form one man corporations, when you give us the ability to build 3000 man ones. Because that was stupid.

Then, encourage people to GROW THEIR CORP, by reinforcing the "safety in numbers" mentality.

Then, make it hurt to disband.


No one disbands a 100 man corp because of a war. And if 100 guys are to afraid to undock then it's working just fine.


People aren't trying to grow their high sec corps, and no one has any connection to a corp that consists of just a dozen people. It's easy to just disband and reform. THAT needs to be addressed.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2013-01-17 23:36:43 UTC
CCP Solomon wrote:
Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.

I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon


Give players a reason to build an empire. A reason to fight for it. Things they can't simply roll up, toss in the back of their ship and run. Docking up should no longer be the most logical decision. It should be the worst decision.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#106 - 2013-01-17 23:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.

I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon


Give players a reason to build an empire. A reason to fight for it. Things they can't simply roll up, toss in the back of their ship and run. Docking up should no longer be the most logical decision. It should be the worst decision.

I just want to second what Marlona said.

That and the EVE Uni guy needs to stop teaching people to do exactly what's contributing to the problem.

PS: Also, both the CSM's that advocated this should be apologizing to the community.
Because something tells me they'll never be a CSM member again.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#107 - 2013-01-17 23:57:52 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
That and the EVE Uni guy needs to stop teaching people to do exactly what's contributing to the problem.

Docking or not undocking when you're being attacked the the way to go. Look at how -A- taught us all why you don't ... you-know-what to -A-.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2013-01-17 23:59:35 UTC
CCP Solomon wrote:
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-01-18 00:04:53 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
That and the EVE Uni guy needs to stop teaching people to do exactly what's contributing to the problem.

Docking or not undocking when you're being attacked the the way to go. Look at how -A- taught us all why you don't ... you-know-what to -A-.

This game has thousands of number crunchers. -A- had more to lose by continuing to fight than to abandon the space and run. Same principle for most of the game. From high sec wars, to low sec gate camps with scouts in all directions to the sov system in null. It comes down to number crunching and more often than not, it is cheaper to run than fight.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#110 - 2013-01-18 00:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#111 - 2013-01-18 00:11:29 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


I hope you get out of the CSM soon, you are against everything that makes EvE Online great. Shame on you.

The Tears Must Flow
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-01-18 00:24:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


While I strongly disagree with you, I still appreciate that you are making this point.

What you are saying is akin to KFC suddenly going vegetarian. Sure there may be some people who only eat the mashed potatoes and coleslaw when they go to KFC, but the vast brand that KFC has built and the customer base it has gained come for the tender, juicy fried chicken. It's alright to cater to all players, but when you have to abandon an established brand and image for a new one, I reckon that change is too radical and it will not bode well with players who are accustomed to the original brand.


EVE is a risky, sandbox-style free for all game with little moderation. That's it's brand and where it most strongly distinguishes itself. Is EVE ready to become a themepark and compete with WoW? It will most surely perish in such a transition.

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#113 - 2013-01-18 00:32:47 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.

Cold and harsh, just like EVE Online.

I guess now we're the ones out in the harsh cold.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#114 - 2013-01-18 00:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Cold and harsh, just like EVE Online.

I guess now we're the ones out in the harsh cold.


See, the real problem is that people like Trebor (and those he's "advocating" for) like to play a game that is cold, harsh, and has a 'hardcore' reputation...as long as it's not cold, harsh, nor hardcore for them.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-01-18 00:43:37 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

You guys TELL your newbies to dock!

I applied to you guys, you repeated that stuff constantly during that rediculously long application you guys have.
YOU contribute to the problem.

How many people go through your guys corp? How many people over the years have you taught this too?
You have no right making any statement like this when YOU ARE A PART OF THE PROBLEM.

It's one thing to tell your guys to this, it's whole other thing when you tell CCP that an acceptable fix is the removal of wardecs in high sec.

The CSM is supposed represent the players.
And you're using your own corporate policy, that you teach new players, as justification to drastically alter the game.


I believe Solomon when he says he didn't expect you guys to agree with him.

Good luck on the CSM, guy.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2013-01-18 00:46:56 UTC
Cold and harsh is a point of view. Not science guys.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2013-01-18 00:51:40 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.

No, he isn't saying that at all. He is saying that their input should be considered and that a mechanic which solely serves to victimize those people is probably bad. On the other hand if things go more the direction of meaningful goals that don't make docking up/logging off the best solution we have the same mechanic actually working properly.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-01-18 00:56:01 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.

No, he isn't saying that at all. He is saying that their input should be considered and that a mechanic which solely serves to victimize those people is probably bad. On the other hand if things go more the direction of meaningful goals that don't make docking up/logging off the best solution we have the same mechanic actually working properly.

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2013-01-18 01:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#120 - 2013-01-18 01:14:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.


I have no problem with them investigating ways to encourage defenders to be more active during wars. I have a *huge* problem with them discussing the removal of non-consensual decs and replacing them with mutual only wars.