Assembly Hall

Obviously posting with an Alt given the controversy that this post will no doubt create.
I would hope the Assembly Hall will read this in full . Consider the contents of the suggestions and arguments and recognise there is a fundamental flaw in the game War Mechanics which impact on a significant number of the subscribers.



As a long term player of eve and running an successful PVE and Indy corporation. I very much appreciate that Wars are part of the fun of eve....for the people that enjoy that element of the game ,.

However many of us enjoy the PVE elements and our alliance is a collection of player that enjoy that side of the game.
Paying for at least 100 accounts each month to do so.

The current war mechanism has protected the smaller corporations from war decs and shifted that to the larger alliance where a small group of pvp griefer players can distrupt the gameplay of paying subscribers just to get easy kills...forcing people to stop playing the game they enjoy or to use npc corporations to avoid the wars.

I would like to propose a plan to shift wars to become a meaningful objective based mechanic and not continue with the notion that wars are part of eve. learn to pvp or hire mercs ( the very same mercs that abuse the current system)

I have started to lose faith in what the development team values in eve as the direction its going the sandbox seems to only favour people who want to destroy sandcastles not build them...

There really doesn't appear to be anyone considering why do the small corporations form up and then disappear?
Crime and punishment is littered with corporations asking how they defend themselves and their operations in high sec wars...granted its part of what makes Eve Online EVE that if someone really want to spoil your day they can...but the current mechanics are far to open to abuse.

This actually harms the games development ..the smaller corporations never get off the ground, new players who band together often have to join a larger alliance in the hope of some protection only to find that the same griefer corporations war dec the empire based alliance even more frequently.

My Alliance has been subjected to this for many years..we have operations and procedures we put in place to fight back, we work with the other corporations and we avoid losses through intel etc.

However the fundamental way to actually end a war where the purpose is just to create targets for people to shoot at is to merely avoid the conflict and ship spin....is that really how CCP views winning a war and for it to be meaningful game play?

I don't propose making High Sec completely safe the beauty of eve is there is always a way to get something done. The espionage, fraud , theft and aggressiveness of the game makes it what it is.

There has to be consequences, team super friends put a significant amount of work into the bounty and security mechanics..this should be the mechanism that deals with High sec conflict..

If a corporation has an issue with an individual the game mechanics should mean that they can assassinate the player but they have to choose their time and place..high sec concord will deal swift justice...but are they quick enough to save the victim? unless the victim is lured into a trap through legal game mechanics.

If a corporation has an issue with another corporation then the fee for concord to turn a blind eye to conflict in High Security space should be significant! Would the USA allow Microsoft and Intel to start a war within US territory? That should be the view of Concord ( as is being used for another Space MMO).
The cost should be enough to make the corporation consider all other options...engage the pilots in low sec?, infiltrate the corporation?, undermine its trading options through market PVP? conduct a propaganda campaign ? hire genuine mercs to complete a job ( again this would still cost a significant amount more than the current 50 million for a small corp. and 500 for an alliance.)

For the POCOS in high sec any corporation that chose to claim a High sec POCO would forgo the protection of CONCORD . Concord being the protector of High Security space is stretched too thin to provide defence for structures within high security space...but there is always a price

This would help CCP with the desire to shift game play to low sec and null sec..Low sec used to be a case of "here there be dragons".

Navigating low sec used to be fraught with danger because that's where the pirates lived and getting to null sec was even more of a challenge as you had to survive the route through low sec 1st.

This also made the pvpers actually PVP not just gank mining barges ..players would be anti pirate groups breaking gate camps, players would need to escort assets if they didn't have access to jump freighters or carriers or use logistics corporations such as red frog.

I am not someone who needlessly complains about game issues , I have played since 2003 , ran a successful player alliances for most of that time , the changes CCP has introduced over the years have kept the game fresh but I do worry that the new player experience, the interests of your subscribers who just want to play the game how they want to following the PVE and industrial careers that the game offers.

High Sec should never be safe ....but there should be significant consequences to any acts of aggression there and the game mechanics should enforce that. not circumvent it.

Things are being considered.

The CSM are actively talking to CCP about how social grouping in eve can be taken forwards, both in adjustments to the current system, and more complete overhauls.

Consequences. That is truely something that is lacking in the EVE universe. So you did something bad and Concord blew up your cheap fit cata... no big deal. So you did so many bad things you are free to shoot by any player, but since you can only fly cheap/fast ships around and go anywhere you want and do anything you want, again, no big deal.

Concord and faction navies make grandiose claims when a criminal or enemy comes into their space "You will be terminated!" "You will surely die!" "You will not be tolerated!". Different navies have different flavors, but they all boil down to telling the offending pilot that they are not welcome and will be killed.

But when have you ever seen them back those claims or even take a stand against those they want to kill and will not tolerate? They sure don't escalate if a Drake is just hanging out tanking whatever navy ships happen to be there to catch it. And they don't really do anything about the -10 criminals flying around in T3 cruisers either.

Back on your point about hi-sec wars. In any sandbox you will have griefers, and no matter what you do you will always be griefed by players whose sole desire is to ruin someone else's fun. There will always be exploits and ways around the system in place to maximize their griefing potential. The best way to defend against it is by having spread yourself out in gameplay styles available to you. Some of my characters are in their own alliance with a few dead corps and some cool people we have met along the way (maybe half a dozen active players amongst 30 characters), they get their usual grief decs like everyone else. But they have ways around it, passive income and activities are one, alts in separate corps that are sufficiently skilled and can also do griefing of their own is another. When one set is dec'd I play on the other more, and vis versa. Diversify, that was the word I was looking for.

Though I guess you were also directing it at the cost it has on new pilots, which cannot do that or don't know how to prevent the extended dec's or don't even know people they can recruit to help. Also doesn't help that there are so many fake war assistance corps out there which just lure the new corps into thinking they will get help when all they are doing is giving away ISK. Maybe some sort of rating system for corps so that you would know if they will help or just want your ISK (but then that would be abused as well by the very same griefers, nevermind).

Regardless I have some ideas I've been writing up along the lines of real consequences in a game that "says" there are consequences for actions, probably just as long a read as this one, which is a shame because of the number of people that can't keep their attention for longer than half a paragraph :(

Which is bad because it is not, nor ever was meant to be, true.

High-sec was meant to be "relatively safer" compared to low-sec... which is "relatively safer" than null-sec... which is "relatively safer" than wormhole space.

Plus, balancing the game based on perception alone is a very dangerous thing.


No. Not like null-sec. Not even low-sec either.

In either of those two areas... EVERYONE is out to kill you... not just the people who you are your sworn enemies. This means you can't fly casual in any way, shape, or form without also being very smart and/or well prepared.

If you have been living in low or null-sec for any stretch of time... high-sec wars are trivially easy to deal with.



To each their own.

I get off roaming around low-sec aimlessly shouting DAKKA DAKKA in local. Then blowing people up. THAT is meaningful gameplay to me.
If someone feels their time is will spent camping a poor sob in a station... who am I to judge?

Though... from the victim's perspective (either in my scenario or the station camping one)... our forms of gameplay probably won't have any meaning in any way, shape, or form... and it certainly won't be fun if they just sit there.

But that isn't exactly a systemic issue. That's a player issue. The "victims" CAN have fun... they just have to "make it fun" by either turning the tables or changing their perception altogether (both of which are difficult, but possible).


edit:

As far as "risk" to the war deccing corp*** goes... players are supposed to provide that risk. If you have nothing to dissuade someone from attacking you... then you are making yourself an easy target.

***Understand that the act of attacking people (even "helpless" people) is NOT "greifing" in EVE. Even if it is for "lols."
This means that high-sec war deccing corporations are not "griefers."

"Greifing" is when you single out and harass an individual over a substantial course of time despite the efforts of said individual to avoid it.

This is laid out pretty clearly in the EULA.


One last thing... in EVE, a player is only as helpless as they make themselves. If you are an industrial corporation with no ability or will to fight back against aggressors... you should not be surprised by the result.
And yes... everyone should learn the basics of PvP (even if they do not like it). Because PvPers have to learn the basics of non-PvP activities to survive too.
Again... it's a two way street.



War means whatever people want it to mean. You can't forcibly "make it worthwhile" when it is subjective in their first place (not without turning it into a grind-fest akin to 0.0... which you DO NOT WANT... trust me).

I've once declared war on a corp where one of its members "looked at me funny."
Rationally, there was no "meaning" to it. For me though... it was perfectly justified and I proceeded to make the war as "fun" for me as possible.
The other guys though... half of them left the corp right away... half of the other half stayed in station cowering... and the few remaining scrubs tried to take me on.
They died of course... but after a few chats I decided I liked a few of them. So I poached them for my corp.

I don't really see a problem with any of the above. I went through it when I was a newbie... yeah it was painful... yeah it made me mad... yeah many of my newbie peers were confused (though, I could not understand that one as the term "War" is pretty self explanatory; "people get to shoot you")... but because I asked (both my corp leaders and the guys who shot me) I learned what to do and how to survive better.

I expect nothing less from a newbie... let alone a semi-established player with set money-making activities.

Which is exactly what the problem is with the current wardec mechanics. The aggressor is able to throw a wad of money at Concord to get virtually unlimited targets for a relatively small price. There are corps out there that are constantly at war with over 60 different corporations at once. The fact that such a thing is even worth considering is proof that the current wardec mechanic is one big joke.

From a gameplay perspective a mechanic needs to be 'favorable' to both parties. It needs a balance of risk and reward, which is what EVE is all about. Where is the risk vs reward balance in the current war mechanics? The aggressor wardecs because they want kills. They are prepared to fight. Fighting is the entire purpose of the wardec so there is virtually no risk involved for them while at the same time they reap all the rewards (killmails, loot, payment, satisfaction).

While, as the defender, it's the other way around. The average corp getting wardecced isn't exactly excited to have a war. They have to stop whatever they're doing and adjust to the situation someone else forces onto them. Your example of a 'proper' reaction to a wardec, by flying a different ship and moving to a different system, is completely insane and further shows how broken the system is. That should not be the 'proper' response in any situation. Let's not forget that this is a game people play for fun, yeah? Furthermore the defender corp bears 100% of the risk and absolutely none of the reward (and consider just for a moment that there are people who don't consider killmails and PVP kills rewarding).

To put things in perspective, imagine this situation was the other way around. Imagine there was a way for industrial corps to declare 'forced labor' onto any random PVP corp. For one week straight they would have to do mining and industry even though they hate every single second of it. Of course they could keep doing what they were doing, but it wouldn't be very effective, very risky and could potentially lose them billions if they didn't move far enough away from their mining overlords to stay off the radar.

So to recap. Aggressor: 0% risk, 100% reward. Defender: 100% risk, 0% reward. That sh*t is broken and needs to be fixed.

And no, high sec should not be a safe haven. War decs should always exist in some form. But in their current form they're just hilariously broken in favor of the attacker. At the very least this needs to become a 50/50 balance. But realistically the defender needs to have an advantage. Wardeccing someone should be an important decision that requires careful consideration. Not something you do in freaking bulk with 60 different enemies at a time just so you have something easy to shoot that won't shoot back.

Saying the current system is 100% not broken is nothing short of complete ignorance.

1: Yeah, those corps that have 60+ wars going at a time are almost exclusively merc corps, who get their wardec bills paid by the clientele. Changing the price of wardecs will not effect this in the slightest.
2: Favorable to both sides? You need to share whatever you're smoking that makes you think this is even possible. If one side of a fight has favorable conditions, then the other side, by default, has unfavorable conditions. In EvE, if you're in a fair fight, both you and the other guy screwed up.
3: So it's utterly insane to expect you to fly smart? It's utterly insane to not give the wardecers free kills while still keeping an income stream? I think you also forgot that this is game people play for fun, and some people consider it fun to blow up the spaceships of people like you. Defender corps only face the risk when they don't fly smart. Undocking in lvl 4 mission hubs in blinged out battleships while at war is not flying smart. AFK mining at any time is not flying smart. Wars are zero risk to a defender who flies smart.
4: If an industrial corp had the firepower to enforce a rule like that, I'd say great. Of course the PvPers who fly smart will have backup options far away from those industrialists.

Recap:

Aggressor: risk based on ability of defender to actually fight back, reward based on ability of defender to fly smart

Smart Defender: couldn't care less about the war, as it doesn't really effect him

Not Smart Defender: cries on forums that wardecs are broken and need to be nerfed because he cannot fly smart

Bottom line, if you fly smart, you can ignore almost every wardec.

Being blown up, war decced, or "interfered with" has NEVER been a EULA violation by itself.

In fact.... all those things are "design" principles that CCP follows.
"Players are not entitled to success. The most aspirational goals are coveted by many but reached by few."
~ Balancing Tears with Laughter Presentation, Fanfest 2013


The only way the EULA comes into play with regards to "not enjoying the game" is when players are being singled out over an extended course of time despite their "best efforts" to counter, fight back, or avoid it... for no reason.


Again... even us PvPers have to make decisions and perform actions that we do not enjoy.



Nope. It still does mean something.
In high-sec you can be at war... but you are only at war with a small segment of the total population there. If hostiles are not around... you are "safe."

Compare this to low-sec, null-sec, and W-space... you are effectively "at war" with anyone and everyone who is in your system. At all times. And you don't get a warning from CONCORD when they come gunning for you.

Ergo... high-sec is "safer" than low-sec (much more so in fact).

Here is a rehash of my original argument...

You claim that PvEers, Miners, and Industrialists can't fight. Nor do they want to fight. Fine. They should then find someone else who can fight for them.

Because the reverse of this is also true.

Most PvPers and combat pilots can't harvest, build, or trade to save their lives. Nor do they want to do those things. So they find people to do it for them.


You claim that it isn't fair for a 12-year-old to fight a boxer. Well... why is the child fighting in the first place?
- He/she should use his/her small stature (and superior agility) to slip away from danger.
- He/she can hide.
- He/she can then hire a guy named Lenny. Lenny is a hulking mass of man. Lenny doesn't need to be paid for service rendered. Lenny is instead filled satisfaction and joy when smashing someone worthy of being smashed.
- In the event that Lenny cannot be relied upon... the 12-year-old can gather up all of his/her friends and arm them with sand (see: ECM, Sensor Dampender, Energy Neutralizers, Tracking DIsruptors). Lots of sand (have you ever seen a fleet of Griffins?). Which they will throw in the boxer's eyes. Repeatedly.


You claim it isn't fair for the fastest man alive to race against cripples. Why are the cripples playing "fair?" If I was them, I would throw nails all across the track. Or fire tear gas.
Or... better yet... make it so the man has to pay through the nose to get his shoes, pants, shirt, and anything else he needs.
Market Warfare is a PITA for people with a poor mind for numbers.

The game organically does this (force PvPers to do something other than ship-on-ship combat).

Ships, mods, and ammo are not free.

Ergo... a PvPer either has the learn the fundamentals of PvE, Industry, Trading, and the Market... or get someone else to do all that for him/her.


You know how CODE has to band/organize together to take down large or multiple targets? Yeah...

This only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the paralympians in this example, can pay someone tackle Usain Bolt, and beat him like a redheaded stepchild every time he starts to catch up to them. Even better, the paralympians (god, I hate that you used this stupid analogy) in this case can strap on some bionic legs that put them nearly on par with Bolt.

If they refuse to do that, it's their own fault.