These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed Changes Empire Space and some supporting changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#61 - 2015-04-23 11:14:21 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
This thread again.

On the topic of making wars more meaningful, I shall repost this:

Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?

Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.

This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.

To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that.
1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure.
or
2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.

The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but also the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.


Sounds intresting. How would you stop a large group from deploying 1 in every constellation/system?

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:

Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if
Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you...

The problem with this is the ISK amounts are impossible to balance. You will find the defenders are better off dropping corp / using alts to continue making (less) ISK unimpeded. Take a look at four defenders fighting for a reward of 500m (125m each). All they have to do is PVE for a couple hours to earn that. If we up it to 1b, it now costs a base fee of 1b just for the attacker to declare war. The reward is still a mere 250m for each of the four defenders. Against any of the main mercenary groups four pilots wouldn't cut it though. Now you have twelve, and the reward is less than 100m each.

An alternative idea from a previous thread was each war declared spawns a war structure. The defenders have the opportunity to attack the structure, reinforce it and then destroy it. If they succeed the war ends and cannot be re-declared for a period of time. This gives defenders a clear reason to fight in wars. It also helps limit the amount of wardecs that can be successfully deployed by one group without having to use ISK or mechanics as the limiter. The other side to this is that huge alliances would be able to easily deflect wardecs. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.

Well that's why I proposed to get these benefits utilizing a structure to start with. This single structure would be the whole focus of the war and the only good reason to declare one would be to contest a richer region of highsec then you currently own. The rewards monetarily are really only a bonus to winning not an incentive to declare it otherwise like the old bounty system it would be heavily abused.

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#62 - 2015-04-23 11:23:11 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, why?


Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally.

Quote:

That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.


Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that.

You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way.

1) remove PvP in low- and 0.0-sec in favor of high-sec?
2) remove high-sec incursions (which are mostly used by 0.0-seccers alts)?

Totally supporting this idea.

Kaarous to CSM!Attention

Guys really? ReallyQuestionQuestionQuestion
Nobody is removing or contemplating removing this. Again not the tread for suspect mechanisms. Anything suggested here would not alter wh or null and would hardly affect low and not in any negative way anybody has discussed.

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#63 - 2015-04-23 11:47:35 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

Kaarous to CSM!Attention


I'm actually not eligible to run, nor do I have the interest in doing so.

"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.
Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2015-04-23 12:59:07 UTC
My issue with highsec wars is twofold: They don't provide content to those who don't want it, as they will just dock up/not log in (Weaponizing Boredom)

They lack any real function beyond bullying.



The issue with wars, to me is wrapped up in a larger jumble that includes Incursions, station docking, and NPC corps. There is nothing worth fighting over in highsec that cannot be had without fighting over it. The best you can do is passive-aggressively **** off incursion runners by popping the MOM. This should be the type of thing Wars can deal with, but they simply can't as the fleet that does it will be in 1 man corps and such.

As a whole, highsec is really broken. If it is to be a place to grind out isk and haul so our alts can pewpew in the other areas of the game, then let's just make it that. If it is supposed to be a meaningful sec to participate in, then CCP is going to have to redesign almost every aspect of it from the ground up, and then maybe wars will have a purpose.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#65 - 2015-04-23 15:14:47 UTC
Daerrol wrote:
My issue with highsec wars is twofold: They don't provide content to those who don't want it, as they will just dock up/not log in (Weaponizing Boredom)

They lack any real function beyond bullying.



The issue with wars, to me is wrapped up in a larger jumble that includes Incursions, station docking, and NPC corps. There is nothing worth fighting over in highsec that cannot be had without fighting over it. The best you can do is passive-aggressively **** off incursion runners by popping the MOM. This should be the type of thing Wars can deal with, but they simply can't as the fleet that does it will be in 1 man corps and such.

As a whole, highsec is really broken. If it is to be a place to grind out isk and haul so our alts can pewpew in the other areas of the game, then let's just make it that. If it is supposed to be a meaningful sec to participate in, then CCP is going to have to redesign almost every aspect of it from the ground up, and then maybe wars will have a purpose.


So touching on this what do you think of the proposed changes? everything you just mentioned is wrong with it i have made an attempt to encompass in both my OP post 4 and my replies. Do you have any suggestions to improve theses things that is not already suggested?

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2015-04-23 15:32:18 UTC
to Noragen Neirfallas:
(i've tried to make it readable without lots of quotes)

Let's compare pros and cons here:
Corporation:
+ (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?)
10% increased income from LP/ISK and Mining is quite the benefit to be fair. Make it 15%? I'm not a numbers guy. What would motivate and yet not be unbalanced?

Don't forget: being at war you will spend less time for PvE anyway. Will 'spend less time' + 'get more bonuses' be better? This is what needs to be balanced out.


+ 'ownership' of piece of space
Ownership=Vanity. At the end of the day that will motivate some Smile

Let's hope! Lol


- creation payment
That one off creation payment is negligible. A group of friends starting out in the game could pool that together in a few days of playing and it would mean something to them. Those who can afford it with no hassle wont be affected. It also encourages you financially to hold on to your in game identity.

OK.


- management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...)
If you can't keep 10 players in yoru corp (including ALT's) the Social Corp proposal is the idea for you
- wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses
Yes the other groups will want your space if you own better space. Welcome to eve online I hope you enjoy your stay here Big smile. On a serious note this falls under the Risk/Reward category. Is painting a giant bullseye on your corp really worth controlling the Osmon Constellation?

We are talking 'will PvE players like new corporations or not?'


- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency
nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all?

I don't know about current situation but when i was living in 0.0 (back in 2011-2012) i always used PvE fits. Maybe since then 0.0 became dangerous? I can take your word on that too.
In high-sec smart people use PvE oriented fits. So you want people to change their behaviour too.


Quote:

Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. Does anybody actively dispute that?
...
Nobody is attacking you don't take this personally mate. You want changes. I'm proposing some that don't turn High-Sec into Disneyland. Eve is gritty. Eve is harsh. It makes Eve fun.


McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:

March rabbit wrote:
Again:
You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z.

This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest.

March rabbit wrote:
These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players".

That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting.


As i said right from the start: you are approaching the problem from PvP aggressor side. I'm presenting you with views from other side. If you don't care about it - Ok. Personally i would love new proposed system to have some meaning for everyone involved unlike things like bumping. That's why i'm posting here.

And i haven't taken anything personal here. Thanks. Good discussion till now. Keep it going!



The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-04-23 19:00:25 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's not universally the case that players who spend their time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone.


I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers.

You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game.

I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really?

I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob.

This is a mechanics change/idea post. please find other avenues to argue circular arguments and whine about current mechanics. There are a dozen posts available for just that. Thankyou



So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations. If all the guys that sit on station all day with instalockers and Vindis/guards docked up had to move out into space and into other systems to find content, THAT would make the game alot more interesting. You'd see more baiting in missions and ice belts, more ganking, more baiting on stargates, and far more opportunities to lay traps for people when they can't hide in station or undock neutral logi at a moment's notice. People would actually have to move ships around and do things rather than hovering inside the docking radius in an instaloki pressing F1.

That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#68 - 2015-04-23 20:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations.


And welcome everyone to Gatecamps Online.

Your suggestion would be extremely bad, since stations are one of the few places that a natural chokepoint, which makes it easier to force a fight in said area. If you remove one, people will congregate en masse to the last remaining one, gates.

[edit: And of course, the carebears will then use that as rationale behind nerfing or deleting gatecamping. Just like the last ten years, you babies cry to have something nerfed or deleted, and we move on to something else. Then you cry about the new thing. Because your goal is 0% PvP in highsec, your goal is Trammel.

How about we talk about ways that we can actually encourage conflict, instead of handcuffing it?

"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.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2015-04-23 21:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

So create a no aggression buffer zone around highsec stations.


And welcome everyone to Gatecamps Online.

Your suggestion would be extremely bad, since stations are one of the few places that a natural chokepoint, which makes it easier to force a fight in said area. If you remove one, people will congregate en masse to the last remaining one, gates.

[edit: And of course, the carebears will then use that as rationale behind nerfing or deleting gatecamping. Just like the last ten years, you babies cry to have something nerfed or deleted, and we move on to something else. Then you cry about the new thing. Because your goal is 0% PvP in highsec, your goal is Trammel.

How about we talk about ways that we can actually encourage conflict, instead of handcuffing it?


What's Trammel?

Low/nullsec is already gatecamps online, it's a fact that stargates are one of the only places to catch people in transit who aren't interested in fighting. Gatecamps in highsec are also far more avoidable, i.e. there are multiple routes into every hub and camping them all effectively would require some effort than just hanging out on the undock in an instaloki waiting for reds to appear on your overview. They are also far more vulnerable to ambushes and third party intervention than hub camps where the hordes of logi and vindis are just one click away.

My goal is not to remove Pvp from highsec; I have had some decent successes in highsec combat and I don't like the idea of entirely risk free space. But the current situation of 24/7 hub camping and baiting is boring and breeds stagnation; if those high SP, asset rich players had an incentive to move outside the 4-4 docking radius, or perhaps even jump out of the hub system a few times a week, you'd create a a situation where conflict was more likely because going after a gate camp or a roaming force is alot less suicidal than showing up on station to play Suddenly Nestors, or to watch the campers hide if they're outmatched.

When's the last time you undocked anyway? Why do you think incentivizing risk averse pvp is good for the game?
Gilchrist Blackmoore
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2015-04-23 22:01:33 UTC
I would limit alliance sizes to some small number of players, perhaps 50? Alliances are largely meaningless in low-sec, null-sec and wh's fleet fights anyhow and sov is being screwed over as it is so that can be adjusted to work with this. The big effect would be in hi-sec. This would make it impossible for any one alliance to be in all the trade hubs and main pipes in strength. Alliances in coalitions could still all war dec a common enemy but they would be far less likely to all wardec the same small newbie/weak corps at the same time.

This would have the effect of allowing the smaller and weaker corps to still fly around, visit trade hubs and just play the game while wardecced. They would still be in danger of being killed but if they are smart and carful it wouldn't mean having to shut down operations for a week which doesn't benefit them or the aggressor. It might even encourage the smaller guys to put up a fight as they would be more likely to bump into the big guys traveling around solo or in small gangs. And the big guys would be less coordinated as they would have to deal with more CEO's to get group wardecs issued and large fleets formed up.

It would also split up the stronger players into a larger number of alliances which would only encourage more participation as they would have to all individually try recruiting members to get up to their 50 max instead of flying around fat and bloated in a 200 man corp where members dropping and adding here are there are only trivial issues to them. And absentee toons would be kicked from corp to make room for active members since they are limited in size. This trimming of the fat will make these corps more likely to actually do stuff.

Just some thoughts I have on the matter.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#71 - 2015-04-23 22:10:12 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

When's the last time you undocked anyway? Why do you think incentivizing risk averse pvp is good for the game?


Can we knock this **** off already? You try flying a Sacrilege and a scout with a crying newborn on your lap, and tell me how well that works. My ass has been playing the market for the past few weeks, or I wouldn't play at all. Kiss off with that ad hominem bullshit, argue the point or don't even bother posting.

"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.
Lyric Masters
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2015-04-23 22:20:26 UTC
Solonius Rex wrote:
I think the corp system itself is broken.

First off, single-man corps should not exist. Corps should have a minimum number of people requirement, say around 20 people, and that if you are inactive in a corp for more than 3-4 months, CCP automatically drops you from that corp and places you back in the NPC corp. Corps that drop below the 20 man minimum, are given 24 hour notice before they are closed, and everyone is kicked.

Secondly, leaving a corp should have penalties. NPC corps should have higher tax rates, around 30%, and if you drop corp, you cannot join another corp for 1 week. This will prevent people from lightly hopping around corps, which i think is stupid.

Thirdly, friendly fire off should have penalties. Concord should charge your corp a premium for the ability to protect your members. This should come in the form of a minimum fee, plus taxes, that is charged to the corp. Once you stop paying, friendly fire turns back on again with a 24 hour notice.

With that in mind, any corp that is in a war, or gets wardecced, should be subject to stricter penalties if people wish to drop corp during wars.

We need to make corps meaningful in order to make wardecs meaningful.


I disagree about the solo corps going away, but would be fine with rules put in place to avoid the "stop, drop and roll" move. I have a good few characters, and I have one that I have zero interest in playing with others in my corporation and am clear about it and role play it as such.

Fully agree with having more meaningful corps but I shouldn't be forced to incorporate with anyone if I don't choose to either. Not for tax evasion purposes, either. I, for one, still think there is an amazing amount of content for the solo player or his small team under his control.

I find a lot more wrong with "hiding" in an npc corp than I do with solo corps that can still be wardecced.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#73 - 2015-04-23 22:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties.


Making it impossible to shoot a suspect while they're at a station won't make people shoot suspects more often. That logic is just totally faulty.

What you're saying is that you won't shoot them while they're near a station because they aren't helpless enough and they're already at a huge mechanical disadvantage compare to the potential aggressors.

People have been coming up with fictitious reasons justify not shooting people in highsec since forever. Here are some of my favorites:

- There's no point trying to kill war targets because they'll just run away.
- They always have dozens of neutral logistics.
- There's always more of them nearby (even when there's literally only 1 person logged in).
- Something something Station Games.
- Something something Trade Hub Campers.

You can be tackling someone in a belt in their home system while simultaneously their CEO explains to your spy alt in teamspeak that there's no point trying to fight you because you'll run away or that you're a trade hub camper who will just play station games.

Those reasons people give aren't actually reasons, they're rhetoric and dogma that prideful people hide behind.

"I don't want to" , "I don't know how to" or "I'm not confident about my ability to win in that situation" would be adequate. But there's a prideful breed of carebear that don't want to make that kind of admission.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#74 - 2015-04-24 10:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
"I don't want to" , "I don't know how to" or "I'm not confident about my ability to win in that situation" would be adequate. But there's a prideful breed of carebear that don't want to make that kind of admission.


Not to derail the thread, but I will admit to being guilty of not being arsed to go chasing after people in Cynabal's and Svipul's, I had so much experience of just that in null sec, though that was before Svipuls. I loved it when the Tier 3 BC's came out then it was just create a screen for them that would kill them if they came in and blap them as they tried to kite, they hated it and it was sweet revenge, problem is that we still did not get to kill them, it just meant that they could not have their fun...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#75 - 2015-04-25 01:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
This thread again.

On the topic of making wars more meaningful, I shall repost this:

Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?

Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.

This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.

To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that.
1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure.
or
2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.

The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but also the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.


Sounds intresting. How would you stop a large group from deploying 1 in every constellation/system?

The second part of the post delves into that.

To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that.
1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure.
or
2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.


march rabbit wrote:
McChicken combo HalMayo wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players".

That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting.


As i said right from the start: you are approaching the problem from PvP aggressor side. I'm presenting you with views from other side. If you don't care about it - Ok. Personally i would love new proposed system to have some meaning for everyone involved unlike things like bumping. That's why i'm posting here.

And i haven't taken anything personal here. Thanks. Good discussion till now. Keep it going!

I'm not approaching it from any one particular side really. Just depends which posts you've read. I don't have a dog in the fight so my posts on the topic have reached towards both ends of the argument.

The problem though starts with a very skewed risk reward balance. Take a look at two polarizing industrial corporations. The first corp has teeth... they are willing to take on more risk for more reward. The second group is toothless... the corp is essentially a chatroom with a recruitment ad. Where are the opportunities for the first corp? Why does their corp lack purpose in highsec? Why are they not rewarded for fighting during wars? Address those questions and you give meaning to highsec corps.

For the players in the second corp, their meaning in the new system comes from a different suggestion entirely. Social "corps" that have few of the benefits of a real corp but cannot be wardecced. These social corps become the new glorified chat room corporations. You can even mass recruit without the risk of wardec.

This creates a meaningful divide. You join a real corporation if you're willing to fight for increased rewards. You join a social corporation if you're not but still want to work with like minded players.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#76 - 2015-04-25 03:29:32 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but I will admit to being guilty of not being arsed to go chasing after people in Cynabal's and Svipul's, I had so much experience of just that in null sec, though that was before Svipuls. I loved it when the Tier 3 BC's came out then it was just create a screen for them that would kill them if they came in and blap them as they tried to kite, they hated it and it was sweet revenge, problem is that we still did not get to kill them, it just meant that they could not have their fun...


We've killed so many Marmite T3 destroyers it's not even funny. It turns out rapid light missiles turn them into dust pretty fast. Coupled with their tendency to engage anything without thinking about what they're shooting (due to the tendency of war targets to not fight back) it makes them easy targets.

Of course having an entire fleet of Orthruses and rapiers helps too.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#77 - 2015-04-25 03:49:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
March rabbit wrote:
- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency
nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all?
To be fair I believe that making PvE fits more like PvP fits is something that CCP have been working on for a while, the work they've been doing on the NPC AI is an example, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that tiericide is also a part an overall plan to do so.

Lyric Masters wrote:

I disagree about the solo corps going away, but would be fine with rules put in place to avoid the "stop, drop and roll" move. I have a good few characters, and I have one that I have zero interest in playing with others in my corporation and am clear about it and role play it as such.

Fully agree with having more meaningful corps but I shouldn't be forced to incorporate with anyone if I don't choose to either. Not for tax evasion purposes, either. I, for one, still think there is an amazing amount of content for the solo player or his small team under his control.

I find a lot more wrong with "hiding" in an npc corp than I do with solo corps that can still be wardecced.
I'm totally with you on this, one man corps should still have a place, but the "stop drop and roll" tactic being without consequence is ridiculous and open to abuse.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2015-04-25 03:56:18 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
That is a serious suggestion. Force all the suspect baiting whackamole mischief out of the docking radii of hub stations and watch **** actually start happening in space. People will have to commit assets offgrid from stations where they'll be vulnerable to interference from other interested parties.


Making it impossible to shoot a suspect while they're at a station won't make people shoot suspects more often. That logic is just totally faulty.

What you're saying is that you won't shoot them while they're near a station because they aren't helpless enough and they're already at a huge mechanical disadvantage compare to the potential aggressors.

People have been coming up with fictitious reasons justify not shooting people in highsec since forever. Here are some of my favorites:

- There's no point trying to kill war targets because they'll just run away.
- They always have dozens of neutral logistics.
- There's always more of them nearby (even when there's literally only 1 person logged in).
- Something something Station Games.
- Something something Trade Hub Campers.

You can be tackling someone in a belt in their home system while simultaneously their CEO explains to your spy alt in teamspeak that there's no point trying to fight you because you'll run away or that you're a trade hub camper who will just play station games.

Those reasons people give aren't actually reasons, they're rhetoric and dogma that prideful people hide behind.

"I don't want to" , "I don't know how to" or "I'm not confident about my ability to win in that situation" would be adequate. But there's a prideful breed of carebear that don't want to make that kind of admission.


All of those five "excuses" you listed are perfectly valid reasons not to feed effortless killmails to hub huggers. I have seen the neutral logi undock en masse, I have seen station campers dock up and log off when a real fleet wants to play, and adding Absolute Defiance to my contacts list shed new light on the composition of Dodixie local.

Force that kind of player to expend effort for kills and they will either go put in a minimum of effort to hunt targets or they will unsub. And anybody that unsubs because they can't play f1 monkey on the undock anymore is no loss to the game.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2015-04-25 03:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but I will admit to being guilty of not being arsed to go chasing after people in Cynabal's and Svipul's, I had so much experience of just that in null sec, though that was before Svipuls. I loved it when the Tier 3 BC's came out then it was just create a screen for them that would kill them if they came in and blap them as they tried to kite, they hated it and it was sweet revenge, problem is that we still did not get to kill them, it just meant that they could not have their fun...


We've killed so many Marmite T3 destroyers it's not even funny. It turns out rapid light missiles turn them into dust pretty fast. Coupled with their tendency to engage anything without thinking about what they're shooting (due to the tendency of war targets to not fight back) it makes them easy targets.

Of course having an entire fleet of Orthruses and rapiers helps too.


That last sentence is pretty telling. Your average highsec corp can't undock that kind of comp on a whim much less know what to do with it.

What kind of idiot takes a dessie against an RLML cruiser anyway?
Valkin Mordirc
#80 - 2015-04-25 04:04:50 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but I will admit to being guilty of not being arsed to go chasing after people in Cynabal's and Svipul's, I had so much experience of just that in null sec, though that was before Svipuls. I loved it when the Tier 3 BC's came out then it was just create a screen for them that would kill them if they came in and blap them as they tried to kite, they hated it and it was sweet revenge, problem is that we still did not get to kill them, it just meant that they could not have their fun...


We've killed so many Marmite T3 destroyers it's not even funny. It turns out rapid light missiles turn them into dust pretty fast. Coupled with their tendency to engage anything without thinking about what they're shooting (due to the tendency of war targets to not fight back) it makes them easy targets.

Of course having an entire fleet of Orthruses and rapiers helps too.


That last sentence is pretty telling. Your average highsec corp can't undock that kind of comp on a whim much less know what to do with it.



Please don't start with your SP **** again. I've already more then gone over multiple times with you.


Like literally just stop.
#DeleteTheWeak