These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where's Red Frog an Push on this nerf NPC thing?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
#241 - 2013-02-05 10:47:03 UTC
Well, this has turned into another "sort this out CCP, they're not playing properly in the sand box" thread. If only all these gankers went into null and waged a multi-front guerrilla war against the blobs rather than complain about not being able to war dec people that are clearly happy to not be involved in war dec mechanics (npc corpers), so what?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2013-02-05 10:47:58 UTC
^lol
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#243 - 2013-02-05 11:12:32 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Nullsec has more PvP ship losses then the rest of EVE combined. The "incusion community" has dropped off the face of the earth since 140m ticks were no longer available.


Just because you don't run Incursions anymore doesn't mean nobody does. Your one-eyed view of the game is obviously biased.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#244 - 2013-02-05 13:44:00 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
But the "cost" a veteran player pays for the awesome benefit of protection from war should be higher

Why?


Because it's too low lol.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#245 - 2013-02-05 13:45:17 UTC
Balthisus Filtch wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:


I would prefer to see restrictions on ships you can undock. if you are in an NPC corp you live with trial account restrictions: no industrials, no freighters, no T2 ships.



I like this solution.

It would solve the "hiding" problem of long term players exploiting NPC corp mechanics, while still providing new players that entry path to explore and understand the game a bit before they start getting picked on.

It would even allow people who have made NPC their community to continue to do so if they valued that community above the restrictions.


+1 from me too, it's a perfect solution as far as i'm concerned.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#246 - 2013-02-05 13:48:31 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
People here make the naive mistake of believing that removing PvP evasion chances will somehow force / "entice" (via penalites) players to adapt and do it.

It has not worked for low sec, it's terrible game design to force or penalize players in subs based MMOs. I've played a number of MMOS both imposing "no retreat", "no escape", "penalties" or multiple of them at the same time and they ALL spectacularly failed.

People who don't want to fight, won't. Period. You can make them sit in a station, you can make them disband a corp, stay in NPC corp, form 1 men corps, join stuff like decshield and so on. But in the end they think: "I am paying for a game, who are you to force me to have no fun and be slaugthered, in a game where being spawn camped has also harsh consequences".
This makes those players believe they are entitled to decide (because they pay a sub) whether they accept a fight or not. And they WELL know that if someone in EvE attacks you is because they prepared super-mega extra overhelming odds anyway.

So, have fun nerfing this and that, in the end you'll just get station sitters and ultimately quitters. Like in every single PvP MMO that attempted this route.


Ah the "carebear dollar" myth, where the baseless assertion that people who are absolutely PVP-intolerant form a significant part of the CCP's bottom line is pushed forward, despite riskfree PvE expansions that catered to these people correlating with little growth and being considered failures. It usually signifies the point in these threads where the pro-NPC corp faction has given up on mechanically justifying their retention and instead cries that game balance should take a backseat to CCP's income. People use wardec evasion because it is competitively advantageous to do so, not because it vital to their playstyle. If your goal is to farm ISK, getting into fights or paying ransom or docking is an obstacle towards that, and the best way of getting past that isn't through something crazy involving 'interaction in a MMO' but just a few buttons to join an NPC corp/corphop, assuming you ever leave.


lol, the people you are talking about aren't just good at pvp evasion, they're good at discussion evasion as well.

It's how we know we're winning the argument when they have to fall back on "you just want me to play your way" and "ccp will lose subs and the game will die". Even after it's explained to them that no one cares if they pvp or not.....

I still waiting for the massive carebear unsubs from the NPC AI change. I guess there is a lag time for such events lol.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#247 - 2013-02-05 14:15:09 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:


See, it really isn't just that. That's the kind of thing that makes me disagree with most people's points on these subjects though, yeah. I mean, I see no problem in people keeping out of wardecs. A lot of them just seem meant to pick on the weak targets and get away with being pirates safely in high sec.


I know of one Corp that has war decced well over FORTY High Sec Industrial Corps since December 1. Yes, forty. Actually it's a small Alliance of 3 Corps with about 42 members that's all.

That's a nuisance to everyone including CCP for having to listen to the rage mails from those decced corps.

Lot's of work is still needed on the War dec machanics, that's for sure.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#248 - 2013-02-05 14:20:39 UTC
Lister Vindaloo wrote:
If only all these gankers went into null and waged a multi-front guerrilla war against the blobs rather than complain about not being able to war dec people that are clearly happy to not be involved in war dec mechanics (npc corpers), so what?

Bat country are blue to us.

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 ?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#249 - 2013-02-05 14:59:40 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Or, you could suck it up and pay the price to kill those you cannot kill legally. Why is that concept so abhorrent to you?.

This is interesting. Would you say CCP set the wardec costs too low or too high? How much do you think someone should pay to "kill the unkillable"?

I ganked a Tengu in a player corp with some guys back when wardecs were 2mil. It cost us an estimated 14mil (plus sec status, but no one cares about that) and the guy lost roughly 500mil, maybe a bit more.

Now wardecs cost 50mil per week on the cheap, but arty Thrashers are still < 2mil a pop.

The best part is that CCP says we're "paying for targets" when we declare war, but those targets are free to drop or hop corp. Some value, huh?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#250 - 2013-02-05 15:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Karl Hobb wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Or, you could suck it up and pay the price to kill those you cannot kill legally. Why is that concept so abhorrent to you?.

This is interesting. Would you say CCP set the wardec costs too low or too high? How much do you think someone should pay to "kill the unkillable"?


I think this is actually more part of the 'problem' that war's cannot be 'won'. There are no objectives. It's wider symptom of the whole mechanic I think. Someone wrote a post somewhere I won't try to paraphrase but it was along the general lines that the deck is stacked for the aggressor too much and that there's a problem that the 'victim' corp can't inflict meaningful pain back. I think it was in the mini-threadnaught about the CSM notes sounding like making decs require mutuality.

If we're really wanting to look at this, the whole thing needs looking at imo.

But that's a much bigger debate.

edit: found it:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2479284#post2479284

Paul Maken wrote:
The current war declaration system is broken. It's not broken because the aggressor can go kick over some innocent defender's sandcastle. It's broken because the aggressor doesn't have their own sandcastle to defend.

My experience with war declarations has been that the aggressor is usually the smaller corporation, and all they do is high sec war. They declare war on a large number of corporations in order to have sufficient number of targets and then they either hunt mission runners or camp a high sec gate.

In most cases, the defenders could smash the aggressor very easily if they had a way of forcing a fight. The problem is that the aggressors have plenty of neutral alts to watch surrounding systems, and high sec is full of stations where they can dock up if the defenders form up in numbers.

Since high sec war is all the aggressor does, they never have need to fly through gates alone or do missions. This does not expose them to sufficient risk to let the defenders have a chance to force a non-consensual fight on the aggressor.

What I would like to see is some sort of objective by which the defender can win a war. Tie the war to some sort of anchored structure that the defender can destroy if the aggressor is unwilling to fight the fair (or unfair) fight. Make that structure expensive enough that when the defender wins the war by blowing it up, the loss is painful to the aggressor.

If you want the defenders in wars to fight back, then their FCs need the ability to form fleets. You don't get many volunteers asking people to form up to get blue balled. You get fleets together by going to extract ISK and tears from your enemy.

Too many times I've seen a friendly fleet get a jump away from the aggressor war targets just to have their neutral eyes report us so they can easily dock up before we can fight. If the aggressor isn't willing to fight the war they started then I should get to stomp on their sand castle and watch the ocean refill the crater left behind.

Wars don't need to be mutual, but the risk needs to be.




Also your tengu anecdote is a perfect example that the mechanic to bring the pain if people want it or not is alive and well.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#251 - 2013-02-05 15:19:21 UTC
NPC corp dude making false statements, what a shocker.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#252 - 2013-02-05 15:33:08 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I think this is actually more part of the 'problem' that war's cannot be 'won'.

These sorts of statements always crack me up. Defenders have the exact same toolset as the wardec corps use, and in fact have more now that they can recruit allies and set bounties. Wars need no "objectives" in a sandbox, and they can easily be "won" by defenders.

So what do you think about the wardec costs and "paying for targets"?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#253 - 2013-02-05 15:48:23 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I think this is actually more part of the 'problem' that war's cannot be 'won'.

These sorts of statements always crack me up. Defenders have the exact same toolset as the wardec corps use, and in fact have more now that they can recruit allies and set bounties. Wars need no "objectives" in a sandbox, and they can easily be "won" by defenders.


I edited in the post I was referencing, it explains it better.

Karl Hobb wrote:
So what do you think about the wardec costs and "paying for targets"?


As for what I think about the costs - I don't, I've not thought about them because I really don't care. What I know is that I've seen enough pinyatas explode around mission hubs in a shower of purple and blue tagged mods that there's absolutely no argument that people in NPC corps are somehow 'immune' to PewPew. It just costs 'more' to do - and that is something that people in favour of wardecs seem to have issue with - I'd suggest asking them what they feel on costs rather than me Smile
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#254 - 2013-02-05 16:16:52 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I edited in the post I was referencing, it explains it better.

Actually, it doesn't. It's a **** argument. Everyone in the sandbox has the same tools available to them (for the most part, null-sec is another matter). Adding something for the attacker to defend won't actually change current defender behavior.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
What I know is that I've seen enough pinyatas explode around mission hubs in a shower of purple and blue tagged mods that there's absolutely no argument that people in NPC corps are somehow 'immune' to PewPew.

That's what's called "ganking for profit" and it's an entirely different beast. It is incredibly easy to avoid being a "gank for profit" victim. Wardecs can have more meaning, such as disrupting an alliance's supply lines or interrupting industry, the problem is that it's so easy to evade them.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It just costs 'more' to do - and that is something that people in favour of wardecs seem to have issue with

Citation needed.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#255 - 2013-02-05 18:09:31 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

lol, the people you are talking about aren't just good at pvp evasion, they're good at discussion evasion as well.

It's how we know we're winning the argument when they have to fall back on "you just want me to play your way" and "ccp will lose subs and the game will die". Even after it's explained to them that no one cares if they pvp or not.....

I still waiting for the massive carebear unsubs from the NPC AI change. I guess there is a lag time for such events lol.


You are good at facts evasion instead. Show me where CCP has nerfed PvP evasion or where they state the next expansion(s) they are going to nerf PvP evasion.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#256 - 2013-02-05 18:16:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Karl Hobb wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I think this is actually more part of the 'problem' that war's cannot be 'won'.

These sorts of statements always crack me up. Defenders have the exact same toolset as the wardec corps use, and in fact have more now that they can recruit allies and set bounties. Wars need no "objectives" in a sandbox, and they can easily be "won" by defenders.

So what do you think about the wardec costs and "paying for targets"?


If defenders had good chances, they'd not drop / evade a wardec.

But of course the attacker are assumed to be averagely smart, therefore they will choose:

- indy corps (high potential lost value vs low defense). Attacker has PvP trained players instead.

- defendant will have structures in space while attackers have nothing. They WILL have their own stuff of course but guess what... on alt corps.... to evade PvP! Lol

- defendant will have logistics and easily disrupted operations often involving bulky / slow ships. Attackers have alt corps for logistics (guess what, to evade PvP!) and their ops are about attacking the others with fast hit and run ships.

This alone grants that defendants with ANY grain of salt are best to just sit in a station and wait it out, while pulling down structures and / or assigning them to alt corps themselves. Same for logistics.


Edit: another factor is "readiness".

Even assuming an hi sec defendant corp to be proficient at PvP, they probably use all their resources in their core business (else they get out-competed). Therefore if they get a wardec, they will probably have PvP ships somewhat parked out of place, part of the pilots busy / doing other in RL because of "peace time", will probably have cut on first line defenses and so on. A wardec gives little warning enough that the defendant could be not ready to respond to attacks in time. Can't assume every corp to have as main core business continuous PvP, those who don't are less prepared to a timely defense even if they wanted and could defend.
This alone suggests the defending corp to evade PvP and then - once ready - eventually wardec the original aggressors. Basically there's something screeching about wardec mechanics where the two ends don't meet well even if they wanted to.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#257 - 2013-02-05 18:55:07 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

lol, the people you are talking about aren't just good at pvp evasion, they're good at discussion evasion as well.

It's how we know we're winning the argument when they have to fall back on "you just want me to play your way" and "ccp will lose subs and the game will die". Even after it's explained to them that no one cares if they pvp or not.....

I still waiting for the massive carebear unsubs from the NPC AI change. I guess there is a lag time for such events lol.


You are good at facts evasion instead. Show me where CCP has nerfed PvP evasion or where they state the next expansion(s) they are going to nerf PvP evasion.

'
Show me where I said any such thing. where do you get this stuff?

Lemme guess, English isn't your 1st language.
Chiavette Anninen
Doomheim
#258 - 2013-02-05 18:56:19 UTC
None of my RFF freighter alts are in an NPC corp because then I wouldn't be able to web them. I'm pretty sure most of the other RFF pilots' freighter alts are also in player corps for this same reason. What CCP does to NPC corps and wardec mechanics has no impact on RFF operations. Don't drag RFF into your wardec tears thread...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#259 - 2013-02-05 19:09:55 UTC
So RFF's secret is that it actually works as a team and is at the keyboard when they haul?
Removing NPC corps - no harm done.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#260 - 2013-02-05 19:36:43 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I edited in the post I was referencing, it explains it better.

Actually, it doesn't. It's a **** argument. Everyone in the sandbox has the same tools available to them (for the most part, null-sec is another matter). Adding something for the attacker to defend won't actually change current defender behavior.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
What I know is that I've seen enough pinyatas explode around mission hubs in a shower of purple and blue tagged mods that there's absolutely no argument that people in NPC corps are somehow 'immune' to PewPew.

That's what's called "ganking for profit" and it's an entirely different beast. It is incredibly easy to avoid being a "gank for profit" victim. Wardecs can have more meaning, such as disrupting an alliance's supply lines or interrupting industry, the problem is that it's so easy to evade them.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It just costs 'more' to do - and that is something that people in favour of wardecs seem to have issue with

Citation needed.


Citation? It's common in any thread, including this one, that people claim it's a problem, or "not enough".

Why do you need concord sanctioned war? Why not a simple threat a-la the miner bumpers, they dont need a war dec to influence and disrupt.

Why is it so important that you be able to attack people without real consequence? Why are they deccing Johnny Industry and not the goons/red federation/etc?

Why is it so wrong that people should be able to play the game their way in the sandbox? Before you answer, keep in mind the station traders, let me know how those wardecs on those powerhouses have panned out for you.


People cannot avoid PvP, people can avoid (to a very limited extent) unwanted PewPew. Why is that a problem? Do you jump willingly into gate camps, or do you take steps to avoid it?

Why do you have an issue with people taking steps within the game to stop you shooting them without consequence? Why do you feel so strongly that this is a great injustice?


The notion is as ridiculous as removing null, making it all Empire on the grounds that "well, you'll just dec each other so no worries"