These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2015-08-29 06:38:51 UTC
I personally dont care about it. But no, you are wrong in your concept wars I know you doing.

I dont need to answer for you comparing the act of shooting other people in an FPS game with harassing people in an MMORPG sandbox game. The sillyness of the comparison speaks for itself.

Observe that I am not talking about the act of destroying a pixel spaceship in a game. I am talking about what is said and the form it takes around the act of destroying said ship.

I, myself, am in the simple side of this. I run a corporation of docked alts that mostly undock just in rookie ships if ever. I am part of a corporation that wont EVER engage in fights because my single sole unique (you like concepts, dont you ?) is to make and distribute ISK and stuff around the hisec. I earn by getting people to do stuff, and I earn if they dont. I earn if they survive, I earn if they dont. And I am satisfied with that.

What I agree with you is that, crying people deserve their misery, because instead of leaving a game they find no joy, they bang head to the wall trying to make the game what they like instead. That is a sort of pitty bullying. Trying to use the power of pitty to force a situation over others. Silly, but the intent still there.

If I were to provoke people constantly due to the fact that I have the power to never undock and therefore, I cant be fought with, would be a kind of bullying aswell. The bullying is not the fact that I dont undock, the bullying is the things I can do with money and then rub in someone else's face. That would be bullying aswell.

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.
Avvy
Doomheim
#162 - 2015-08-29 10:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Avvy wrote:
My initial reaction after reading through your proposals are

1B - no
2A - no
2B - no
3 - no
4 - probably no
5A - no
5B - no
5C - no

I'll give my reasons when I have some more time.


Ok, I'll expand on this now.

1B Change wardec fees

Can't see it discouraging blanket wardec as all they will do is use multiple corps.

Also don't see that encouraging smaller corps to wardec is a good idea as all what will happen is some pilots would form a corp (maybe even a solo corp) just for the purposes of trying to harass the corps they wardec.

Also don't see why you should try to reduce the amount of times a larger corp can wardec smaller corps. After all part of EVE is the idea of the big fish' little fish.


2A Tax NPC corps

Most people don't like taxes.

You wouldn't encourage them to leave an NPC corp all you will do is encourage them to leave the game.

They are not safe in a NPC corp as suicide gankers have demonstrated time and time again.

What about the safety of player corps that are created for just market trading?


2B Player corp history (standing)

So all corps would gain, larger ones even more so. Thought your idea was to make high-sec less profitable.

The only corps that would lose are those that do disband. That should give an advantage to larger corps that are unlikely to disband.

Also what would happen to the corp attribute when a pilot leaves? All I see happening is corps won't disband they will just leave a caretaker alt in charge.


3 Adjust hisec agents

I guess you are worried about CONCORD response times as you singled out 0.9 and 1.0 systems.

The reason the agents are spread out and that level 4s are also spread out (like other levels) is so you don't end up with too many pilots in the same systems.



Edit:

Actually not sure if CONCORD would turn up for a mission, so that sentence in 3 could be irrelevant.
Avvy
Doomheim
#163 - 2015-08-29 11:15:22 UTC
Avvy wrote:
My initial reaction after reading through your proposals are

1B - no
2A - no
2B - no
3 - no
4 - probably no
5A - no
5B - no
5C - no

I'll give my reasons when I have some more time.



4 Incursions (risk vs reward in general)

I don't see how you can balance risk v's reward as that changes all of the time.

For instance you must get quiet times in player owned null so although the reward remains constant the risk changes.

But anyway CCP should be in a better position to evaluate what incursions should pay-out.


5A Limit higher quality ore variants (shift profitability towards lower security systems)

Shifting mining profitability towards lower security (but still high-sec) space, would have a tendency to clump the mining population together instead of them being more spread out throughout high-sec.

I'm starting to think one of your agendas is to reduce CONCORD response times.


5B shift the ore security scale (towards lower security)

Same issue as 5A.


5C Balance the Procurer and Skiff

Thought that had been done already. As I understand it the Covetor and Hulk have a slightly different roll. For instance Hulks are for mining in groups with support ships so they don't have to keep going back to the station to unload, hence they have a smaller ore hold.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#164 - 2015-08-29 11:53:11 UTC
Captain Phil wrote:

Incorrect.


That kill you linked is an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about. With few exceptions that mostly entail the absolute failure on the part of the owner, for the most part things like that only happen when people are downright stupid enough to load five billion isk into a single ship, like you did.

You earned that loss. The problem is that very few people are dying who didn't something equally stupid. The barrier for failure is so low, you have to do something that monumentally dumb to actually fail, and that's just wrong.

"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.
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2015-08-29 12:00:25 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
When in a Player corp - All LP earned in missions gets a 25% increase, but is paid to the corp and divided up at the end of the month or week to all members. Kinda like the ESS mechanic.

(Apologies if this seems "steam of consciousness", I'm thinking out loud here and my brain is currently dealing with the double whammy of sinus pressure and allergy meds. Urk.)

Let me twist this a little bit with something simpler. As the members of a corp earn LP for a corp/faction, the corp starts to gain a modifier that applies to LP/ISK rewards that corp/faction. The longer you're in the corp and gaining LP, the more LP corp members earn. However, if you leave the corp, that modifier doesn't come with you, and if the corp disbands the modifier goes away with the corp.

The problem with this is that one of my goals is to make it harder to earn ISK in hisec, not easier. If we just did this without adjusting anything else, more ISK and LP would be generated, not less.


Maybe instead of penalizing NPC corps directly, we nerf mission rewards across the board (say, X%, it doesn't have to be much) and then apply the modifier to player corps so that when the modifier is maxed it adds slightly more than X%. So if you stayed in your player corp long enough you could potentially earn more than you do now, but you'd have to work for it and stay vulnerable to wardecs. If you stay in an NPC corp or disband/reform your corp, you would earn less than you do now.

This would really only incentivize mission-running and FW player corps, but I think it would work with them. Maybe we could come up with similar modifiers for other corp activities? Want max ore refines? Do lots of refining in a player corp and you can get slightly higher than you can now. Want cheaper job costs? Install lots of jobs in a corp and they can get slightly cheaper than they are now. Trade costs? Contract fees? Heck, maybe even have a modifier for wardec fees so that the longer a merc corp exists and the more wars it fights, the lower its wardec fees get. (Folks here will love that one.)

Basically...have the corp be rewarded for corp member activity, but that reward stays only with the corp. As a corp matures over time and gains various modifiers, it could be a draw for new members...and a target on their back.

Forcing a corp to fold would actually mean something now.

Risk vs reward.


I do like ideas like these.

Obviously the specifics and numbers will vary, but giving corps some kind of benefit for existing over time and a cost for trashing it or individuals dropping out for no reason matters.

Perhaps the ISK/LP faucet problem of increased benefits for being in a corp could be balanced by simply extending the NPC corp tax to more activity?

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.
Avvy
Doomheim
#166 - 2015-08-29 12:06:04 UTC
Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.



In RL you can't always choose between the carrot and the stick.

In a game however, you can always choose to follow the carrot, because with the stick method people can just opt out.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#167 - 2015-08-29 12:12:09 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.



In RL you can't always choose between the carrot and the stick.

In a game however, you can always choose to follow the carrot, because with the stick method people can just opt out.


If you only change the game with carrots, you might as well just give isk away for runaway inflation.

Rebalances do not mean buffs across the board. The nail that stands up gets pounded down. The nail by the way is highsec.

"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.
Avvy
Doomheim
#168 - 2015-08-29 12:14:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.



In RL you can't always choose between the carrot and the stick.

In a game however, you can always choose to follow the carrot, because with the stick method people can just opt out.


If you only change the game with carrots, you might as well just give isk away for runaway inflation.

Rebalances do not mean buffs across the board. The nail that stands up gets pounded down. The nail by the way is highsec.



Granted, but by the same token you can't expect to make someone's game worse for them and expect them to put up with it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#169 - 2015-08-29 12:25:53 UTC
Avvy wrote:

Granted, but by the same token you can't expect to make someone's game worse for them and expect them to put up with it.


I damn sure can, they've been doing it to me for a decade. It's about time carebears got to see how that tastes, in fact it's long past time.

They've had their way for ten years, highsec has gotten safer and safer, and their blithe promises of more "casual players" has not come true, nor will it ever. Instead the game stagnates, and lowsec in particular lies largely empty.

It's time the pendulum swings the other way, and it will be a net loss for them, and rightly so. I don't expect them to like it, they're being nerfed after all, but what's good for the goose is finally going to be good for the gander, so if those hypocrites have a problem with it, they shouldn't have spent the last decade arguing for things they don't like to get nerfed.

"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.
Avvy
Doomheim
#170 - 2015-08-29 12:30:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:

Granted, but by the same token you can't expect to make someone's game worse for them and expect them to put up with it.


I damn sure can, they've been doing it to me for a decade. It's about time carebears got to see how that tastes, in fact it's long past time.

They've had their way for ten years, highsec has gotten safer and safer, and their blithe promises of more "casual players" has not come true, nor will it ever. Instead the game stagnates, and lowsec in particular lies largely empty.

It's time the pendulum swings the other way, and it will be a net loss for them, and rightly so. I don't expect them to like it, they're being nerfed after all, but what's good for the goose is finally going to be good for the gander, so if those hypocrites have a problem with it, they shouldn't have spent the last decade arguing for things they don't like to get nerfed.



All very well, but it's CCP that ultimately makes the decisions.

CCP must have had their reasons for the changes, beyond carebears just asking for them.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#171 - 2015-08-29 12:35:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Avvy wrote:

All very well, but it's CCP that ultimately makes the decisions.


Yep, the very same CCP that gave us the data showing that highsec conflict is the single highest driver of positive player retention.

The writing is on the wall, if CCP chooses to read the obvious.

Quote:

CCP must have had their reasons for the changes, beyond carebears just asking for them.


Pretty much, no. It's why Concord is invincible, for example, as well as the MTU change, the barge and freighter buffs, and the awox removal. And now that they've found out that adding all this safety to highsec is in fact a huge negative to retention since all it does is enable boring people to death, we will see what they do about 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.
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2015-08-29 12:37:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.



In RL you can't always choose between the carrot and the stick.

In a game however, you can always choose to follow the carrot, because with the stick method people can just opt out.


If you only change the game with carrots, you might as well just give isk away for runaway inflation.

Rebalances do not mean buffs across the board. The nail that stands up gets pounded down. The nail by the way is highsec.


Please read this bit:

Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Perhaps the ISK/LP faucet problem of increased benefits for being in a corp could be balanced by simply extending the NPC corp tax to more activity?
Avvy
Doomheim
#173 - 2015-08-29 12:38:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
we will see what they do about it.


Yes, it should be interesting.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#174 - 2015-08-29 12:43:03 UTC
Avvy wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
we will see what they do about it.


Yes, it should be interesting.


Yes, it will be. They have a choice, the same choice that Ultima Online had. I already know what happens if they choose Trammel.

Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Please read this bit:

Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Perhaps the ISK/LP faucet problem of increased benefits for being in a corp could be balanced by simply extending the NPC corp tax to more activity?


My thoughts on the matter are already on record.

"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.
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2015-08-29 13:04:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
we will see what they do about it.


Yes, it should be interesting.


Yes, it will be. They have a choice, the same choice that Ultima Online had. I already know what happens if they choose Trammel.

Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Please read this bit:

Aoife Fraoch wrote:

Perhaps the ISK/LP faucet problem of increased benefits for being in a corp could be balanced by simply extending the NPC corp tax to more activity?


My thoughts on the matter are already on record.



I will take that as an acknowledgement that I considered mubflation.

As for the sticks thing, I will just refer you to eve's history with:
NPC corp tax change, lvl 5 missions being moved to lowsec, insurance nerf on ganking, wardec nerf, dominion sov being supposed to open up null to smaller organisation, and your annecdote where that despite the decade of nerf's you referenced, you are still here and space boat violence is still happening.

People adapt around the nerfs to find carrots. Better game design is to put the carrots in the right places, and if inflation is a problem, make them smaller. Kind of what I meant about the numbers and specifics would need to be looked at.
Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#176 - 2015-08-29 21:30:46 UTC
Quote:
things like that only happen when people are downright stupid enough to load five billion isk into a single ship, like you did.


stop bullying me

Quote:
Suicide ganking is sharply limited in... sustainability


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=141127

"Halaima MinerBumping IPO - SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT BILLION sold!"

Quote:
Suicide ganking is sharply limited in scope... and target selection


Research done on www.minerbumping.com and Burn Jita 1, 2, and 3 yielded unsatisfactory results. I cannot currently dispute this part of your argument.

Quote:
People adapt around the nerfs to find carrots. Better game design is to put the carrots in the right places, and if inflation is a problem, make them smaller. Kind of what I meant about the numbers and specifics would need to be looked at.


No. Carrots are not the solution, because game mechanics aren't the problem. How many combat ships do you see in the average highsec mining fleet? Now add lowsec mining into the equation: Why have 10 barges and 5 battlecruisers in lowsec, when you can have 15 barges in highsec? SO YOU CAN HAVE FUN, DUH!

But, all we care about is isk/hour, isk/hour, isk/hour. Highsec is never going to change until the mindset changes. And I don't believe buffs or nerfs have the power to change this.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#177 - 2015-08-29 21:38:03 UTC
I'm not sure how one group raising seven hundred *and* thirty-eight billion invalidates the argument that ganking isn't a sustainable activity. How many other currently active ganking groups can you name that have that sort of money to fund operations?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#178 - 2015-08-29 22:09:08 UTC
admiral root wrote:
I'm not sure how one group raising seven hundred *and* thirty-eight billion invalidates the argument that ganking isn't a sustainable activity. How many other currently active ganking groups can you name that have that sort of money to fund operations?


None.

Coincidentally, I can't name any other currently active ganking groups that can operate anywhere near as frequently, either. One wonders that if ganking can only really be done on any scale by groups with a nullsec alliance sized SRP, that the mechanic might need buffed.

"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.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#179 - 2015-08-29 22:20:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
I'm not sure how one group raising seven hundred *and* thirty-eight billion invalidates the argument that ganking isn't a sustainable activity. How many other currently active ganking groups can you name that have that sort of money to fund operations?


None.

Coincidentally, I can't name any other currently active ganking groups that can operate anywhere near as frequently, either. One wonders that if ganking can only really be done on any scale by groups with a nullsec alliance sized SRP, that the mechanic might need buffed.


Yup. Without the financial backing industrial scale freighter ganking is unsustainable.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#180 - 2015-08-29 22:32:48 UTC
Quote:
I'm not sure how one group raising seven hundred *and* thirty-eight billion invalidates the argument that ganking isn't a sustainable activity. How many other currently active ganking groups can you name that have that sort of money to fund operations?


None. I don't need to. Stop thinking about isk/hour. Carebears don't mind grinding rocks and/or missions to earn their income. If that's not for you, fine. But that's your problem. Stop thinking like a carebear and looking for CCP to make your job easier.


The savior is a winner with a winner's mindset. Instead of waiting for mechanics changes, he developed a plan and executed.

More winners are the answer. Winners capable of leading and motivating carebears to fight for their right to mine, rather than run.

What would be the state of highsec if James 315 had instead focused his efforts in educating carebears on how to engage in warfare? You could argue that he already is, but that can't be true, since carebears don't fight, and the savior cannot fail.