These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 4.7%: Wardecs with a Purpose
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#81 - 2014-11-20 15:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Lan Wang wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The problem isn't war decs, it's core (and now ancient) game design that designates a large swath of space "high sec" and spawns magical/indestructable space police to do a job that at best should only be done by players.


I think you confuse HS with 0.0.
0.0 is where players are da police.


I confuse nothing. High sec players LOVE to tell us how "null sec is safer than high sec".

so, by High-secian logic, High sec players should welcome the demise of CONCORD so that players can then make high sec as safe as deep null.

Right? Twisted


no, remove concord and it will only affect everyone everywhere

id rather remove weapon activation from highsec and force all pvp to low and nullsec where there is no security and populate null a bit better bringing more content


At least you are honest about your desire to see the core philosophy EVE is built upon destroyed. Most people who think like you do try to hide this vile and incorrect worldview behind a shroud of "think of the children new players".
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#82 - 2014-11-20 15:36:42 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
The obvious path forward is to ask what is different between null and high (it's CONCORD)


It's also a wee little difference in size, accessibility and population, not to mention the ability to bubble gates. "+3 Local" is a completely meaningless piece of intel in, say, Teonusude.

As far as CONCORD goes, it's also the ability of someone in a mid- to long-range boat (e.g., most PVE boats) to attack within their ideal engagement range, instead of waiting for the other guy to reach his ideal engagement range--because CONCORD doesn't protect ratters, they blow up whoever shoots first, eventually.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#83 - 2014-11-20 15:37:28 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
id rather remove weapon activation from highsec

This could almost be a good idea. At the very least we wouldn't have permabears injecting massive amounts of ISK into the economy since ratting and missioning would be impossible in nigh perfect safety. Also incursions. Unfortunately you'd also have to remove towers and POCOs from high-sec because no one could contest them (or tear down NPC POCOs). That would probably also mess with a lot of other mechanics too...

Anyway, what Jenn said: high-sec is the problem, not wars.


By 'weapon activation' he means against players. He still wants to be able to shoot npc and go about the business of stuffing the ever economy with isk and materials safely without possibility of interruption.

At the heart of all high sec partisan thought is a deep and unashamed 'anti-community' selfishness that doesn't care about any other concern.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#84 - 2014-11-20 15:44:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

At the heart of all high sec partisan thought is a deep and unashamed 'anti-community' selfishness that doesn't care about any other concern.


Im adding that to my bio next time I l feel like messing with it.

o7

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#85 - 2014-11-20 15:47:33 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
By 'weapon activation' he means against players. He still wants to be able to shoot npc and go about the business of stuffing the ever economy with isk and materials safely without possibility of interruption.

Oh, I know that. Anyone dumb enough to propose no shooting in high-sec obviously means "no shooting me", but they never add the qualifiers or think of the consequences and mechanic removal that would need to happen.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#86 - 2014-11-20 15:48:57 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
id rather remove weapon activation from highsec

This could almost be a good idea. At the very least we wouldn't have permabears injecting massive amounts of ISK into the economy since ratting and missioning would be impossible in nigh perfect safety. Also incursions. Unfortunately you'd also have to remove towers and POCOs from high-sec because no one could contest them (or tear down NPC POCOs). That would probably also mess with a lot of other mechanics too...

Anyway, what Jenn said: high-sec is the problem, not wars.


By 'weapon activation' he means against players. He still wants to be able to shoot npc and go about the business of stuffing the ever economy with isk and materials safely without possibility of interruption.

At the heart of all high sec partisan thought is a deep and unashamed 'anti-community' selfishness that doesn't care about any other concern.


I dont live in highsec...

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#87 - 2014-11-20 15:54:55 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
I dont live in highsec...

Then why do you think you are qualified to propose a change about a part of the game that does not concern you at all?

Evil RatKid
Dave Stark
#88 - 2014-11-20 16:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
The time has come for you to do the same for highsec war declarations - make them a tool that's actually worth using for something besides lolz and farming kills.



the issue isn't that wardecs are bad.

the issue is that player owned corps aren't worth fighting for.


Honestly, I think that's always been the crux of the problem. And I've never seen a good idea that would fix it.


make player corps suck less and be worth joining?
it's not difficult.

as it stands, unless you want a pos for some reason (which apparently has awful management issue due to corp roles and what not (wouldn't know, i just use a 1 man alt corp for that ****)), there's 0 reason to join a player corp for any one in high sec.
Desimus Maximus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2014-11-20 16:36:39 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Look on the bright side. It's great for inflation control


True - assuming the rate of wars remains more or less constant on average, you're shovelling close to 20 trillion ISK out of the economy per year.


Something had to replace Somer Blink...
Black Pedro
Mine.
#90 - 2014-11-20 16:39:33 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
The time has come for you to do the same for highsec war declarations - make them a tool that's actually worth using for something besides lolz and farming kills.



the issue isn't that wardecs are bad.

the issue is that player owned corps aren't worth fighting for.


Honestly, I think that's always been the crux of the problem. And I've never seen a good idea that would fix it.


What about nerfing the income of those in NPC corps (no Lv3/4 missions, increased tax rate, a penalty - call it a royalty - on mining yield, etc.), buffing the utility of current corporation assets (POS refining, manufacturing, research) and create some new deployable structures that provide some passive (or semi-passive) income that can be built-up over time with some combined player effort?

Add some small costs/disincentives to prevent people from jumping corp on a whim and you have a clear advantage to being in, and staying with/fighting for, a player corp.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Desimus Maximus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#91 - 2014-11-20 16:41:28 UTC
There is a clear and obvious solution. War Declaration Skill I-V, pre-req of Warmonger Skill I-V. Both are corporation management skills. allowing for a total of up to 10 active wardecs as the aggressor. For alliance warfare, the CEO of executor must have the skills.

Unlimited wardecs is just another sub-killer. Declaring war must be meaningful in the game, much like strategic planning for jumping around capitals is now, thankfully.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#92 - 2014-11-20 16:44:12 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
I dont live in highsec...

Then why do you think you are qualified to propose a change about a part of the game that does not concern you at all?


Im not qualified neither are you but in theory anything that happens anywhere in eve affects everyone, so just because i dont live in highsec does not mean i dont use it

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Dave Stark
#93 - 2014-11-20 16:53:32 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
The time has come for you to do the same for highsec war declarations - make them a tool that's actually worth using for something besides lolz and farming kills.



the issue isn't that wardecs are bad.

the issue is that player owned corps aren't worth fighting for.


Honestly, I think that's always been the crux of the problem. And I've never seen a good idea that would fix it.


What about nerfing the income of those in NPC corps (no Lv3/4 missions, increased tax rate, a penalty - call it a royalty - on mining yield, etc.), buffing the utility of current corporation assets (POS refining, manufacturing, research) and create some new deployable structures that provide some passive (or semi-passive) income that can be built-up over time with some combined player effort?

Add some small costs/disincentives to prevent people from jumping corp on a whim and you have a clear advantage to being in, and staying with/fighting for, a player corp.


the stick isn't the way to get players to move to player corps, the carrot is.

otherwise you end up with a crappy corp that still isn't worth fighting for, or a crappy corp with a bunch of ******** restrictions.
neither of which are interesting or fun.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#94 - 2014-11-20 16:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
If wardeccs/awoxxing/theft weren't a threat, I would surely join up with some kind of incursion/L4 corp for social interaction.

EVE is a very social game. You started to troll the wrong people from day one not realizing what long term effect this would have for your character. Maybe you can do that sort of thing in WOW or any other game without consequences for internet tough guys like you if you plan to do only PvE. Your char Veers Belvar will probably never be able to join a normal corp in Highsec. It will most certainly get deced right away and forced to kick you, fold or dock up.

You brought this on yourself. I am not surprised that you now try to ask CCP to change the system in your favour. But this is not a problem for new players at all, the majority of them have no problem joining a corp, it's only a problem for people like you who don't know when to shut up.

tough life, lulz


Ummm....ya........this is a strange post. I constantly have people asking to join my 1 man corp so I can teach them about missions/incursions. I'm forced to decline because of awoxxing concerns. I could easily make the corp with me having all the roles, and no assets, and just roll corp when wardecced. Awoxxing is a bigger problem than wardeccing, though both make highsec corps kinda useless right now.

If I wanted to join a highsec corp, which I don't of course as the ones that publicly recruit are terrible and I can achieve all of my gameplay goals in a 1 man corp, I would just one of my alts that CODE is unfamiliar with. CCP is the one that has noticed that awoxxing is leading to poor player retention, and the same is true for wardeccs.

As for "trolling" CODE, I must tell you that is my great honor to "troll" you folks by opposing real life harassment, targeting of new players, forcing new players to stay in NPC corps, and "harvesting" rage and tears. If the consequence of that is that I can't join some useless publicly recruiting highsec PvE corp on this character, so be it....that's not exactly a major repercussion. Obviously much more important is advocating gameplay changes that work towards preventing new players from getting curbstomped by the usual wardeccers.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#95 - 2014-11-20 16:58:17 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
High sec need more strategical assets that can relinquish good income so that players stay more on corps and that they need to fight back.


I for once would change a lot of things. I would make that NPC corps have a 50% tax (yes 50%) after you are 2 months old. A new player corp has a base tax to concord of 20% with -1% per 2 players up to -10%. The last -10% you get rid of by having a POS or some other sort of fixed structure that you move your headquarter to. That is a target that most corps would have to defend..

Also. .leaving a corp in war create kill rights that will expire in 7 days. Since these are possible to be made open to all, leaving a corp in war would be MORE dangerous than staying.



Now.. on the OTHER side. Would make that When someone declares a war it MUST also associate that war with a POS of his own corp. Allow as many wars to be linked to a POS as the owner woudl want. If the POS is taken down, ALL wars associated with that POS go DOWN, and ALL the money paid for the wars associated with that POS is passed to the corp that made the killing blow on the POS .. Also those same wars cannot be remade for 2 weeks. That way war dec groups could not HIDE and fight only when they want. Groups could gather and go kill their POS and enforce a War end.


I think something Like that would create a scenario where no side can COMPLAIN. Because the defenders can enforce an end if they have balls or hire mercenaries. Woudl create more real fights and less ganking on pipes. Also people would gather more in player corps due to a real benefit in doing so. Also leavign corp during war would have a real impact.


Not sure about anyone else...but this kinds of stuff would just make me get 6 different chars to run L4s/incursions, 5 in 1 man corps, 1 in NPC corp....would play on the 5 as long as all were not wardecced, and if all 5 were, then use the NPC alt. Good for the game how exactly? Remember, you can't force people to log in, and as long as you won't punish for docking up, these wars aren't going to be a meaningful way of actually hurting defenders.
Good Posting Reloaded
My Real Mind
#96 - 2014-11-20 17:01:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Good Posting Reloaded wrote:
Veers can join my corp and do what he pleases whenever he wants and with 0 taxes, and of couse jump in and out. I wouldn't require api because i don't give a rat ass. Besides, what the point of joining a high sec orp? Unless you are a stinky high sec roleplayer, that is.

And lol at "this is a very social game" haha, yeah tell that to the "replicant" fleets. This game is more like Age of Empires in space, controlling dozens of villagers but with the help of an external program and the more you pay, the more dps you have.



Can I join my alt? because if yes I will wait you undock in something expensive and kill you without concord intervention.


Yeah you can. Feel free to apply.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#97 - 2014-11-20 17:06:39 UTC


Having to hit a big red "end wardec" button on an aggressor's POS is a real immersion killer. For that reason alone I would oppose the change.


Call me Joe.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#98 - 2014-11-20 17:08:25 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
The time has come for you to do the same for highsec war declarations - make them a tool that's actually worth using for something besides lolz and farming kills.



the issue isn't that wardecs are bad.

the issue is that player owned corps aren't worth fighting for.


Honestly, I think that's always been the crux of the problem. And I've never seen a good idea that would fix it.


What about nerfing the income of those in NPC corps (no Lv3/4 missions, increased tax rate, a penalty - call it a royalty - on mining yield, etc.), buffing the utility of current corporation assets (POS refining, manufacturing, research) and create some new deployable structures that provide some passive (or semi-passive) income that can be built-up over time with some combined player effort?

Add some small costs/disincentives to prevent people from jumping corp on a whim and you have a clear advantage to being in, and staying with/fighting for, a player corp.


Great idea Roll

Drive all the people looking for a relaxed PvE experience right out of the game, but do nothing to stop the obvious response by wealthier/more experienced players like me which would be to create lots of alts capable of running L4s, stick them all in different 1 man corps, and just use whichever one isn't wardecced. Also, your ideas would lead to the same cartel control that plagues nullsec. Fail idea is fail.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#99 - 2014-11-20 17:16:14 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


What about nerfing the income of those in NPC corps (no Lv3/4 missions, increased tax rate, a penalty - call it a royalty - on mining yield, etc.), buffing the utility of current corporation assets (POS refining, manufacturing, research) and create some new deployable structures that provide some passive (or semi-passive) income that can be built-up over time with some combined player effort?

Add some small costs/disincentives to prevent people from jumping corp on a whim and you have a clear advantage to being in, and staying with/fighting for, a player corp.


the stick isn't the way to get players to move to player corps, the carrot is.

otherwise you end up with a crappy corp that still isn't worth fighting for, or a crappy corp with a bunch of ******** restrictions.
neither of which are interesting or fun.


Ok, nerf the NPC corps less, and buff more the corp-owned deployables - make kind of like a mini-sov system but only with in-space structures.

Say have a few types like a "mining station" that is deployed in belts (but doesn't actually mine asteroids) but can provide corp members passively with ore similar to PI (or alternatively buff mining in system).

Or a highsec version of the ESS that increases mission/bounty payments in system (but with less risk of theft than the current ESS). You get the idea - all linked to the corp and improvable by the corp over time with effort.

The trick is to balance it so that the corp deployables can be improved at a rate that not all corps max them out right away, but not too slow that a new corp can't catch up, and not to trash the economy with too much passive/increased income from these carrots at the same time.

Still, all the mechanics in the world can't help if you have a crappy CEO. Probably though, those corps aren't actually worth fighting for and deserve to die.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#100 - 2014-11-20 17:17:02 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
I dont live in highsec...

Then why do you think you are qualified to propose a change about a part of the game that does not concern you at all?


Im not qualified neither are you but in theory anything that happens anywhere in eve affects everyone, so just because i dont live in highsec does not mean i dont use it

Yeah, then let's remove all the moons from wormsec, I don't live there, but that does not mean I don't use it. It would be so much more pleasant for me if this space wasn't littered with towers. I don't even know what your are doing in there, so what do I care if my stupid idea kills your playstyle?

Evil RatKid