These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#181 - 2015-04-30 01:50:03 UTC
I defiantly don't speak for marmite lol. This would destroy our alliance in its current form. A limit of 5 wardecs??? what would we do?

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
#182 - 2015-04-30 01:54:21 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

If by "wouldn't normally utilize it" you mean they would be attracted to a system where they don't even have to put in the miniscule amount of effort that is currently required in the wardec system in order to prey on the weaker players, yes.

Dolphins, sharks, and grizzly bears don't get along either. They all would agree that making fish easier to catch would be a good thing though.

So having various groups that prey on smaller weaker corps agree that their prey should be easier to catch is basically meaningless. It has as much validity in that aspect as a bunch of highsec miners sitting around agreeing that bumpers should be Concorded. Consensus is pointless if the only people involved are those that directly benefit.

Conflict between corps should be driven by people having assets they think are worth defending. Using penalty mechanics to force people to get into PC corps and form larger corps and imposing massive penalties if they try and leave a corp under war is not "helping drive conflict", it's asking CCP to mechanically enforce you getting to shoot fish in a barrel. An opinion which you share with the before mentioned dolphins, sharks, and grizzly bears.

Let me ask you a question. Do you have an idea to fix/replace the current system that would in any way improve things and help to drive conflict in the most populated area of space?

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

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2015-04-30 02:22:31 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Let me ask you a question. Do you have an idea to fix/replace the current system that would in any way improve things and help to drive conflict in the most populated area of space?


Step 1 would be slashing the activity based research and production fee's on Starbases to half that of the system they are in, while increasing the fees in station by around 50%. Anyone doing larger scale production should have very compelling reasons to do it out of a POS, not a station. Unlimited station slots was a terrible idea by my opinion.

Anyone who has subcontracted something out knows you get charged out the ass for their time, their experience, and everything they need to do to finish your job. There is nowhere near enough incentive to manufacture in a POS that can be attacked.

I also find POCO's largely ineffective as a conflict driver in highsec. If the suggested loss involved with either taking or defending a POCO is larger than the moderately-small amount of isk it produces, people tend to just cut their losses and let it be taken.

I would prefer POCO's be moved to a standalone structure or POS mod, that would enable the corp members of the owning corp to use POCO type effects across the constellation. Losing the structure would mean that people are then forced to launch the pickup rockets instead of shipping to a POCO or POCO replacement thing.

But frankly, if you wardec a corp and they want to go full yellow bellied coward and all drop corp and flee to the corner of the empires or take down their tower and roll it into a new corp, I feel completely uninterested in making them stop.

People like that don't magically htfu and start providing interesting content. They run away, or they stop playing. Since I considering them useful to the game if for no other reason than by providing CCP money to improve the things I do in game, supporting any system that ties them down or harshly penalizes them until they no longer want to play, in retaliation for not playing the game according to how you think is should be played (You in this case meaning any member of the highsec wardeccing, bumping, or ganking crowd) is not on my list of things to do.

I don't honestly consider the current system all that bad. You pick on the slow, the stupid, and the ones unwilling to put in effort, and the ones who are smarter, or faster, or just plain willing to take down their entire POS and put it back up again to dodge a wardec can mitigate the effects your war.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2015-04-30 02:42:16 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Let me ask you a question. Do you have an idea to fix/replace the current system that would in any way improve things and help to drive conflict in the most populated area of space?


Step 1 would be slashing the activity based research and production fee's on Starbases to half that of the system they are in, while increasing the fees in station by around 50%. Anyone doing larger scale production should have very compelling reasons to do it out of a POS, not a station. Unlimited station slots was a terrible idea by my opinion.

Anyone who has subcontracted something out knows you get charged out the ass for their time, their experience, and everything they need to do to finish your job. There is nowhere near enough incentive to manufacture in a POS that can be attacked.

I also find POCO's largely ineffective as a conflict driver in highsec. If the suggested loss involved with either taking or defending a POCO is larger than the moderately-small amount of isk it produces, people tend to just cut their losses and let it be taken.

I would prefer POCO's be moved to a standalone structure or POS mod, that would enable the corp members of the owning corp to use POCO type effects across the constellation. Losing the structure would mean that people are then forced to launch the pickup rockets instead of shipping to a POCO or POCO replacement thing.

But frankly, if you wardec a corp and they want to go full yellow bellied coward and all drop corp and flee to the corner of the empires or take down their tower and roll it into a new corp, I feel completely uninterested in making them stop.

People like that don't magically htfu and start providing interesting content. They run away, or they stop playing. Since I considering them useful to the game if for no other reason than by providing CCP money to improve the things I do in game, supporting any system that ties them down or harshly penalizes them until they no longer want to play, in retaliation for not playing the game according to how you think is should be played (You in this case meaning any member of the highsec wardeccing, bumping, or ganking crowd) is not on my list of things to do.

I don't honestly consider the current system all that bad. You pick on the slow, the stupid, and the ones unwilling to put in effort, and the ones who are smarter, or faster, or just plain willing to take down their entire POS and put it back up again to dodge a wardec can mitigate the effects your war.


I agree pretty much entirely with this. I'm thinking that the new structures would be a good time to tidy up POCO bonuses and also fix the industry stuff that teams were supposed to help with. Wardecs would also be intrinsically linked to the new structures and should be revisited at the same time.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#185 - 2015-04-30 02:44:08 UTC
"what would you do to improve wardecs and enable conflict in highsec?"

"Duh! I'd massively buff industrial players!"

Roll

"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.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#186 - 2015-04-30 02:53:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"what would you do to improve wardecs and enable conflict in highsec?"

"Duh! I'd massively buff industrial players!"

Roll


Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures and likely into jobs that take far longer than the 24 hour wardec timer is totally a buff.
I mean, you can take down jobs and get all your materials back and keep all your research on jobs up to the moment you take it down, right?

Reduced production costs is not really much of a buff in any case. It all gets rolled over into the cost the people who buy it pay. Being able to shave 10% off your production cost doesn't mean you gain that 10% as profit if everyone else can do it too, it means you need to market your goods lower to compete.

Besides, I thought you were trying to improve reasons to fight over. Even if it was a buff to industrialists, it's in no way shape an opposite to generating PvP content. Why would it?

Unless you are really just after the fun you get by blowing up miners or idiots running missions during wardecs, and hoping for tears as they stop playing because even leaving corp generates killrights. It's true to does little to help you stalk individuals to gank.

You want people to stand and fight for something, give them a reason to fight over something.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#187 - 2015-04-30 03:01:48 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures


You mean the Poses they get 24 hours notice to empty their loot from? Oh wait, it's not 24 hours, it's longer, because for some reason they get reinforcement timers in highsec. Effectively, you're asking for a huge buff to industrial players, while making highsec PvP players have to fruitlessly shoot way, way more structures that barely cost anything in the first place. But wait, there's more! If you don't want to grind structure timers, you can go right back to the untenable status quo, except with every industrial player in the game having their income doubled!

The fact that you think people wouldn't see through that trite nonsense is just insulting.

The point of this is not to massively buff carebears. It's not to turn highsec into small scale sov warfare, either. It's to enable conflict, to make it more likely to happen, not drastically less.

"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.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2015-04-30 03:15:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

Right, because forcing them to sink large amounts of isk into structures


You mean the Poses they get 24 hours notice to empty their loot from? Oh wait, it's not 24 hours, it's longer, because for some reason they get reinforcement timers in highsec. Effectively, you're asking for a huge buff to industrial players, while making highsec PvP players have to fruitlessly shoot way, way more structures that barely cost anything in the first place. But wait, there's more! If you don't want to grind structure timers, you can go right back to the untenable status quo, except with every industrial player in the game having their income doubled!

The fact that you think people wouldn't see through that trite nonsense is just insulting.

The point of this is not to massively buff carebears. It's not to turn highsec into small scale sov warfare, either. It's to enable conflict, to make it more likely to happen, not drastically less.


The only way they can pull it all out is if all their jobs take less than 24 hours. Highly unlikely for basically any serious manufacturer.

And I guess you missed that whole "It's not an huge increase in industrialist profit because they are competing against everyone else with the same capabilities and the same margins" bit, did you. Margins of profit are likely to remain similar to current even if you suddenly removed all of the costs associated with manufacturing in a POS. There is no government price fixing of sale costs.

And no, the point is that you think conflict needs to happen on your terms only. All of the ideas I have seen in the thread can basically by summed up with "Let's massively punish people for being in an NPC corp, let's punish people for making small or solo corps, and lets punish everyone who tries to do anything to avoid the wardec on my terms"

You keep spouting on about "untenable status quo", and "enabling conflict", "encourage PvP". As long as it's all on your terms only of course. If an idea dares not "enable (highsec war deccing) conflict, to make it more likely to happen", or god forbid actually make corps use things to fight over as a conflict driver, it's "trite nonsense"

Why should I treat that with any less derision and contempt than I do the requests of miners for super Concord or making bumping an exploit?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#189 - 2015-04-30 03:41:47 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

And no, the point is that you think conflict needs to happen on your terms only.


Nope, that's still you, wanting to collate wardecs with structure grinding.



Quote:

You keep spouting on about "untenable status quo", and "enabling conflict", "encourage PvP". As long as it's all on your terms only of course.


As opposed to you? The only way you aren't disagreeing with "buff wardecs" is when that really means "not so stealth nerf them".

You're projecting like a mofo right now.


Quote:

Why should I treat that with any less derision and contempt than I do the requests of miners for super Concord or making bumping an exploit?


Because conflict is what keeps new players subscribing, not chewing on rocks like a mentally handicapped dog. There is no equivalency between the two sides. One wants something to improve the game, the other wants something that benefits them but hurts the game.

"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.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#190 - 2015-04-30 04:16:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Because conflict is what keeps new players subscribing, not chewing on rocks like a mentally handicapped dog. There is no equivalency between the two sides. One wants something to improve the game, the other wants something that benefits them but hurts the game.


Good to see a well balanced opinion in here.

If you happen to come up with an idea that doesn't overwhelmingly favor yourself and your playstyle to the massive detriment of everyone not you, I might actually support it.

I won't hold my breath though.

Feel free to sit around and circle jerk with other members of the one sided highsec wardeccing crew all you want, but when you get no traction with anyone else, don't be surprised.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#191 - 2015-04-30 04:30:11 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

Good to see a well balanced opinion in here.


That's not even my opinion. It's CCP's data.

Quote:

If you happen to come up with an idea that doesn't overwhelmingly favor yourself and your playstyle to the massive detriment of everyone not you, I might actually support it.


Thanks for showing that you haven't read the thread, in any case.

Quote:

Feel free to sit around and circle jerk with other members of the one sided highsec wardeccing crew all you want, but when you get no traction with anyone else, don't be surprised.


The really funny part is that it didn't even take a page after that accusation was made(I believe by you) to see you and Corraidin fluffing each other about your oh so wonderful idea to basically ruin the whole point of wardecs.

Hypocrite.

"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.

Don Purple
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#192 - 2015-04-30 04:39:09 UTC
small scale highsec sov? Lul :P

I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.

Madd Adda
#193 - 2015-04-30 04:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
It's been mentioned before how the SP difference between a grief dec's aggressors and defenders can be so why not place a limit on the hull size that can be used to attack based on the defender's corp size?

Corps/alliances/coalitions that have 1-50 members total can use hulls up t1 frigs and t1 dessies
51-100 up to t2/faction frigs, t3 dessies, and t1 cruisers
the trend goes on.

say the marmites decs a corp of 48 people, they can't use anything bigger than a t1 frig/destroyer to fight, BUT can attack larger hull ships of the defender. If that happens the limited engagement kicks in and allows retaliation just to be fair. If either side attacks the other in a ship larger than the specified size and isn't in limited engagement with the WT, concord pops them if in high sec (no killrights generated). Oh, and if the defend corp adds three members nothing changes because the war is based on the member list at the time of the dec. EDIT: forgot to mention defender's mercs. They would be bound the same way as others in the sense of hull size since the dec was to a corp of 48.


This way, even small corps can get into war with low SP players, aggressors get content and a challenge since they can't fly their shiny ships and utterly curbstomp their WTs. YAY frig roams!


aaaaand here comes Kaarous to tell me how wrong i am to place further restrictions on war when wars are meant to get rid of concord, blah blah blah.

Carebear extraordinaire

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#194 - 2015-04-30 05:09:08 UTC
Small corp does not mean low SP corp.
Large corp does not mean high SP corp.
High SP does not mean any of it is in combat.

That's why the idea of restricting hulls is bad, not to get into awkward arbitrary restrictions. Mechanics should be as simple and as intuitive as possible.

However there is nothing needing changing with the wardec system at all. The changes need to happen on the corp benefits side, as kaarous and others have complained, there is no reason to be in a high sec corp really, so they need benefits (& not stupid leeching income things) to make it worth staying in corp and fighting.
Madd Adda
#195 - 2015-04-30 05:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Small corp does not mean low SP corp.
Large corp does not mean high SP corp.
High SP does not mean any of it is in combat.

That's why the idea of restricting hulls is bad, not to get into awkward arbitrary restrictions. Mechanics should be as simple and as intuitive as possible.

However there is nothing needing changing with the wardec system at all. The changes need to happen on the corp benefits side, as kaarous and others have complained, there is no reason to be in a high sec corp really, so they need benefits (& not stupid leeching income things) to make it worth staying in corp and fighting.


I do realize the large corp ≠ high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.

Addendum: I admit i didn't take into consideration mass war decs, but i still stand by my idea. I suppose it would be annoying to fight WT from many war dec'd corps of different sizes, but i suppose you can't have it all.Perhaps Concord can announce hull size in the war dec mail?

Carebear extraordinaire

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#196 - 2015-04-30 05:25:00 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:

I do realize the large corp ≠ high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.

Sure.... But there is no reason to restrict hulls. There are just too many variables that could go either way. What if the attackers are a small low SP corp wanting to roam in cruisers. It doesn't make sense to simply put a restriction on based on even a single size factor. Yet to get realistic restrictions it becomes a vastly complex system.
Therefore.... KISS applies. No hull restrictions are the best way to go. Everyone understands.
Madd Adda
#197 - 2015-04-30 05:31:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:

I do realize the large corp ≠ high SP, but it would be probably more difficult to base wars on average SP of all members. At least this way, smaller corps that don't have many high SP players have options. If you have a large alliance with low SP players, then you're up a creek one way or the other.

Sure.... But there is no reason to restrict hulls. There are just too many variables that could go either way. What if the attackers are a small low SP corp wanting to roam in cruisers. It doesn't make sense to simply put a restriction on based on even a single size factor. Yet to get realistic restrictions it becomes a vastly complex system.
Therefore.... KISS applies. No hull restrictions are the best way to go. Everyone understands.


then things default to the original reasons for avoiding war: SP disparity, unwillingness to participate due to either choice or lack of skill, or just isn't worth fighting. If the defenders knew they were facing off against ships sizes comparable to their own skills, they'd be more incline to join in the fighting because they know they at least they can make a dent.


Naturally, there are those that don't want to fight one way or the other, there's nothing to be done in that instance.

Carebear extraordinaire

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#198 - 2015-04-30 05:43:29 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
grief dec


There is no such thing. Wardecs are, by definition, not griefing. Ever.

"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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#199 - 2015-04-30 05:54:18 UTC
Skills in what hull? A low SP person may not have many SP in frigates at all. And a high SP person may not have any SP in Battleships but have maxed every race of Frigate to V including T2 weapons to V.
Restricting hull size does not do anything to reduce disparity.
Madd Adda
#200 - 2015-04-30 05:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
grief dec


There is no such thing. Wardecs are, by definition, not griefing. Ever.



depends how one defines it. I see it as the intentional disruption of activity, but i guess it is rather broad


Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Skills in what hull? A low SP person may not have many SP in frigates at all. And a high SP person may not have any SP in Battleships but have maxed every race of Frigate to V including T2 weapons to V.
Restricting hull size does not do anything to reduce disparity.


it reduces the barrier of entry for small corps for starters. t1 frigs are like a 16 min train just to hop in and 2 hour train to get up several other skills like gunnery or missiles up

Carebear extraordinaire