These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 change to Wardecs..
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#201 - 2015-09-05 20:20:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Joe Risalo wrote:

It is a right.. a player can play Eve and be completely defenseless, but takes risks in doing so.
And you can't blame CCP for mechanics that are used outside of their intended design.


Wars are currently used as intended.


Quote:

War decs do not exist solely for the purpose of forcing non-consensual PVP.


That's pretty much their main function, yes. To remove Concord, and thereby grant people the ability to kill others non consensually without Concord's interference.

Quote:

And yes, I am trying to discourage non-consensual PVP


I knew that already. You were pretty transparent about how you wanted to screw up the game.


Quote:

This, in my opinion, is a clear violation of the EULA


Fortunately, the opinion of a worthless NPC alt is of no consequence, in either that matter, or regarding wars.

Bumping has already been declared a 100% legal mechanic. Furthermore, you went ahead and exposed some pretty serious ignorance about why it is done and how it works.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#202 - 2015-09-05 20:23:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You people are just huge ******* hypocrites, I hope you know that. It's never enough for you, so long as PvP exists at all, huh? "just one more nerf", right? It didn't even take you six months after the deletion of awoxing to go after wars.

Uninstall.


We're hypocrites???

You insist that eve is not safe and HS should be less safe, yet you pick your battles specifically based on what you deem to be safe.

You don't want your target to have incentive to fight, because it's less safe for you, and you don't want to be forced to fight when the situation doesn't heavily favor you.

You're the one saying "PVP PVP PVP", yet when we present ideas that would likely make pvp more prevalent during a war, you shoot it down because it doesn't suit your style of PVP, which is nothing more than shooting at a ship regardless of whether is has a pilot or not.

Hell, I take more risks undocking in a Raven to fly a lvl 4 than you do in ganking said Golem.



Then you go on to breach about risk vs reward being imbalanced in HS, yet fail to see how the current war dec mechanics are just as, if not more, risk vs reward imbalanced.
There are players in low and null that earn their kills while you sit on the log in screen, waiting to catch a defenseless war target out in the open with your out of corp scout.

So don't come breaching to me about hypocrisy until you flush your biased views and see that the road goes both ways.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#203 - 2015-09-05 20:29:09 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

We're hypocrites???


Absolutely, yes. You want to nerf (you in particular want wars gutted into near uselessness) a mechanic because some people wind up on the losing end of it. When that is precisely intended design to begin with, in fact that's the whole point of non consensual PvP in the first place.



Quote:

You don't want your target to have incentive to fight, because it's less safe for you, and you don't want to be forced to fight when the situation doesn't heavily favor you.


Both lies, actually. My position on the matter is well known, and includes more actual incentives for both sides than anything you've ever said. It does not, however, include any ways for the defender to make the war just disappear.

Nor do I want to handcuff other people's player freedom, or chain their playstyle's very existence to a structure. But that's because I am, among other things, a real player, and not a hypocrite.



Quote:
You're the one saying "PVP PVP PVP", yet when we present ideas that would likely make pvp more prevalent during a war


You're suggesting ideas that would remove as much PvP as possible, you even admitted this earlier, and you try and hide it behind lies and smokescreens.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#204 - 2015-09-05 20:30:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Fortunately, the opinion of a worthless NPC alt is of no consequence, in either that matter, or regarding wars.

Bumping has already been declared a 100% legal mechanic. Furthermore, you went ahead and exposed some pretty serious ignorance about why it is done and how it works.



Lol, cause an NPC alt is worse than a CODE, probably alt, so that you can have a safe character mining/missioning/incursioning away in an NPC corp.

And yes, bumping is a 100% legal mechanic, which I have no problem with.
What I find to be against the EULA is intentionally bumping the target off grid in order to take advantage of the difficulties it presents to CONCORD and would be support of the intended target.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#205 - 2015-09-05 20:34:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Joe Risalo wrote:

Lol, cause an NPC alt is worse than a CODE, probably alt, so that you can have a safe character mining/missioning/incursioning away in an NPC corp.


A 2 day old newbie in a player corp carries more weight with me than a ten year veteran of an NPC corp.

And I have no such PvE alts. This game's PvE content is completely distasteful to me, I avoid it at all costs.

Quote:

What I find to be against the EULA is intentionally bumping the target off grid in order to take advantage of the difficulties it presents to CONCORD and would be support of the intended target.


It does not do that. In fact, that's not why it's done at all, knucklehead.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2015-09-05 20:39:17 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You're suggesting ideas that would remove as much PvP as possible, you even admitted this earlier, and you try and hide it behind lies and smokescreens.


Which goes to show that you are not reading the suggestions, but instead, bashing any idea of a change to the war dec system because it does not heavily favor you!

Do me a favor, read my last suggestion and tell me that I'm trying to remove PVP.

Joe Risalo wrote:

This is way different than my structure suggestion.


  • Aggressor pays for war dec.

  • Price of war dec is fixed and is NOT determined about amount of members of attacker or defender. This makes deccing small corps less viable thus more meaningful, and makes deccing large corps/alliances more viable and the sheer number of defenders is enough to establish meaning.

  • Cost of war dec is paid on a daily basis, as opposed to weekly, with a minimum days requirement.

  • In order for the deccer to reduce the cost of retaining the war, they must cause isk loss to the defender.
    • This is determined on an attacker vs defender member count.
    Example (not representative of actual values).
    Attacker members / Defender members = Isk loss requirement
    1 / 1 = must cause more than double the attrition to defender
    2 / 1 = Must cause more than Triple the attrition to defender
    1 / 2 = Must cause more than equal the attrition to defender

  • Defender can increase the cost for the attacker to retain the war by causing attrition to the attacker. However, the defender value is more favorable.
    • Example
    Defender / Attacker = requirement
    1 / 1 = must cause more than half the attrition to attacker
    2 / 1 = must cause more than equal the attrition to attacker
    1 / 2 = must cause more than 1/4 the attrition to attacker

  • If both sides do not meet quota, than they're both fined 10 mil per day(example(perhaps it would be 50mil?)), for each day that no attrition is caused. This forces action, dropping the dec, or coming to an agreement for surrender that is supported with game mechanics.

  • If either party adds members, the attrition requirement is increased.

  • If either party drops members, the attrition requirement IS NOT decreased.
    • (thus, adding or reducing members is not beneficial to either party, but is an option)

  • Since the cost of the war is on a daily basis, the attrition can determine price on a day to day basis.
    • If the attacker meets attrition quota, the cost of the war is reduced daily, up to being 0.
    If the defender meets attrition quota, the cost is increased with no limit on cap, thus forcing the defender to quit. Game mechanics will support this and show the defender won the war.


I likely missed a few things, but i'm sitting in my truck and need to head home, so we'll have to consider what I may have missed.

Point is, this gives both sides incentive to fight and in doing so, is presented with a notable value that swings the war in their favor.


This is promoting PVP on both sides, which you don't like because you don't want the target to fight back and don't want to fight back when the situation doesn't favor you.

Well, if you're disappointed with the outcome of war deccing another entity, then maybe you shouldn't use the war dec option.
Just stick to suicide ganks.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#207 - 2015-09-05 20:42:30 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Do me a favor, read my last suggestion and tell me that I'm trying to remove PVP.


You are trying to remove PvP.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2015-09-05 20:44:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


It does not do that. In fact, that's not why it's done at all, knucklehead.



Then enlighten me... Once the target is well outside the jump range of a gate, what point is there to continue to bump them off grid before you attack them?
Really... What's the point of moving the gank off grid?

To make it more difficult for someone to loot your goodies? - EULA violation.. Violation of grid restrictions.
To make it more difficult for someone to aid said target? - EULA
To make it take longer and/or force some CONCORD ships off grid when coming in? - EULA

In any manner, moving the gank off grid is likely a violaton of the EULA.

That said, I have no issues with ON GRID suicide ganks, but it's not the topic of this thread.

The current war mechanics are, and they are broken with hilarity.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#209 - 2015-09-05 20:46:54 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Then enlighten me... Once the target is well outside the jump range of a gate, what point is there to continue to bump them off grid before you attack them?
Really... What's the point of moving the gank off grid?


Are you kidding me? You are seriously this ignorant?

To get out of gate gun range. Yeesh, L2EVE. I dunno how you have the gall to suggest that anything needs nerfed if you don't even know how it works and why.

"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.
Madd Adda
#210 - 2015-09-05 20:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
I just want to say that this game isn't a PVP game by CCP, it's a space simulation/massively multiplayer online role-playing game by genre. Everything PVP in this game by player choice. CCP accommodates PVP through avenues of action, but it's ultimately the player's own choice to act upon it, not CCP.

Kaarous asserts that because it's a PVP game we should all hop in some combat ship or conflict in some way with other players. He's wrong in the sense that it's all about choice on the player's part whether or not to pvp at all, not his choice imposed on other players.

I like the PVE aspects of this game, it's why I play this game. I admit safety isn't guaranteed, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't have options to protect myself, just as the aggressors have options to help them.

Carebear extraordinaire
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#211 - 2015-09-05 20:56:04 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
I just want to say that this game isn't a PVP game by CCP


How did it go again?

"The core concept of EVE Online is full time PvP in a sandbox environment".

Quod errat demonstratum, carebear.

Quote:

Kaarous asserts that because it's a PVP game we should all hop in some combat ship or conflict in some way with other players.


I assert nothing of the sort.

What I do say is that, if you make the choice to be a prey animal, don't whine about the consequences. Don't try to have someone's playstyle nerfed or deleted because you can't be asked to be at the keyboard to defend yourself.

Accept the game, or go play something else.


Quote:
I admit safety isn't guaranteed, but it doesn't mean I should have options to protect myself, just as the aggressors have options to help them.


Too many exist already. In an older corp of mine, I would routinely mission during an active wardec, in a faction battleship. Never once came close to losing it. But I was at my keyboard, paying attention to local, and I was fit properly.

It is easy. Stop asking for the bar to be lowered even further just because some people are bad at 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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#212 - 2015-09-05 20:56:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Do me a favor, read my last suggestion and tell me that I'm trying to remove PVP.


You are trying to remove PvP.


lol... again... this is not contributing to a discussion and is instead strafing any idea of change, as it does not suit you.

That suggestion (though likely flawed in some ways) is intended to encourage PVP.


At this point, your lack in willingness to critique or even defend the current war mechanics leave me no choice but to report for ranting and/or trolling.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#213 - 2015-09-05 20:59:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Are you kidding me? You are seriously this ignorant?

To get out of gate gun range. Yeesh, L2EVE. I dunno how you have the gall to suggest that anything needs nerfed if you don't even know how it works and why.


Again, using Grid mechanics to the benefit of yourself is a violation of the EULA, gate guns included.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#214 - 2015-09-05 20:59:51 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

That suggestion (though likely flawed in some ways) is intended to encourage PVP.


Assuming that is true, which I doubt, it fails in that regard.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#215 - 2015-09-05 21:00:55 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Are you kidding me? You are seriously this ignorant?

To get out of gate gun range. Yeesh, L2EVE. I dunno how you have the gall to suggest that anything needs nerfed if you don't even know how it works and why.


Again, using Grid mechanics to the benefit of yourself is a violation of the EULA, gate guns included.


Lol. You're not even trolling well at this point.

It's perfectly legal. It has been for literally years, what's more.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#216 - 2015-09-05 21:08:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


How did it go again?

"The core concept of EVE Online is full time PvP in a sandbox environment".


Yes.. This refers to mining, mission running, production, and any other activity in which you are providing and/or competing with other players in order to benefit yourself.
It is not limited to ship to ship combat.
Quote:

Quote:

Kaarous asserts that because it's a PVP game we should all hop in some combat ship or conflict in some way with other players.


I assert nothing of the sort.


What you assert is that it's not your definition of pvp if the target is capable of defending themselves.

Time and time again, you have "asserted" that the goal and/or intent in non-consensual PVP, which is not the goal nor intent of the war dec mechanics, nor Eve itself; BUT, it is an option.


Quote:

Too many exist already. In an older corp of mine, I would routinely mission during an active wardec, in a faction battleship. Never once came close to losing it. But I was at my keyboard, paying attention to local, and I was fit properly.

It is easy. Stop asking for the bar to be lowered even further just because some people are bad at the game.


You say this, yet on this very same page of this thread you said

Quote:
And I have no such PvE alts. This game's PvE content is completely distasteful to me, I avoid it at all costs.


Soo.. One of these things is not like the other....

And yes, it is possible to run PVE content with a ship capable of PVP.
To which, the aggressor with either bail out, not even attempt to attack, or bring more ships.

All of which being viable options. the problem is, with the current war mechanics, you have no reason to fight if the situation doesn't suit you, and defenders have no reason to undock or even stay in corp.
Madd Adda
#217 - 2015-09-05 21:09:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


How did it go again?

"The core concept of EVE Online is full time PvP in a sandbox environment".

Quod errat demonstratum, carebear.

where does it say that? I looked it up and all I can find for the genres for EVE were Space simulator and MMORPG. I don't know where you got your info.


Quote:
I assert nothing of the sort.

What I do say is that, if you make the choice to be a prey animal, don't whine about the consequences. Don't try to have someone's playstyle nerfed or deleted because you can't be asked to be at the keyboard to defend yourself.

Accept the game, or go play something else.

And you make the choice to shoot, there is no difference in what I said about PVP being a choice on the part of player, not CCP


Quote:
Too many exist already. In an older corp of mine, I would routinely mission during an active wardec, in a faction battleship. Never once came close to losing it. But I was at my keyboard, paying attention to local, and I was fit properly.

It is easy. Stop asking for the bar to be lowered even further just because some people are bad at the game.


You don't even list the options available. I assume one of them is the ally mechanic for defenders? Nevermind the fact it's not always used, or is used to scam corps out of isk. I assume the disbanding/reforming corp? I can live without it, if it were to go, i don't use it.

Carebear extraordinaire
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#218 - 2015-09-05 21:12:57 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

It is not limited to ship to ship combat.


Nor did I say it was, but that certainly does not mean that you get to handcuff ship combat and claim that you aren't nerfing PvP.

You are, it's your intent, your stated intent at that, and it's unacceptable. Highsec is too safe already.




Quote:

What you assert is that it's not your definition of pvp if the target is capable of defending themselves.


Again, no. You carebears really need to learn some reading comprehension, that or knock off the strawman attempts.



Time and time again, you have "asserted" that the goal and/or intent in non-consensual PVP, which is not the goal nor intent of the war dec mechanics, nor Eve itself; BUT, it is an option.


Quote:

You say this, yet on this very same page of this thread you said

Quote:
And I have no such PvE alts. This game's PvE content is completely distasteful to me, I avoid it at all costs.


Soo.. One of these things is not like the other....


Yeah, three years ago I still did some missioning, when I was with a newbie teaching corp. I no longer PvE, and I haven't for almost two years at this point.

L2Read. You are almost painfully bad at trolling, by the way.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#219 - 2015-09-05 21:14:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

That suggestion (though likely flawed in some ways) is intended to encourage PVP.


Assuming that is true, which I doubt, it fails in that regard.



At this point, a wall would provide more merit to this discussion.


Have it your way... Your trolling/ranting has won you this thread.
Doesn't hurt my feelings. There will be 20 more that pop up in its place from people that are willing to acknowledge that current war mechanics are broken, thus deterring PVP, joining a corp, and even player interaction.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#220 - 2015-09-05 21:15:43 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:

where does it say that?


New Player FAQ, section 7, page 22.


Quote:

You don't even list the options available.


Do I really have to tell you how to watch local, and scout gates? Those two combined are almost invincible.

"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.