These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#581 - 2016-06-25 11:31:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
It is not a question of making it easier for corps in hisec, what I said about the medium Indy structure gives them what they have now if they do what they did with Citadels (7 days to pull it down) then that will make it worse for those hisec corps. But the L and XL which should have better bonuses requires that they are able to fight for it, that would make the game better by creating more meaningful hisec entities and like mining ship balance give people rewards for more risk and less rewards for better security.
Why shouldn't they have to fight for a medium structure? I don't see how letting players benefit from deploying a structure, but allowing them to shirk the responsibility of defending it makes the game better in any way. It isn't fun for the aggressor to be prevented from being allowed to attack a structure, and it can't be fun for the defender to have to keep folding up shop and hiding from any fight.

Eve is about risk vs. reward and there is literally zero risk in highsec for a structure that can be taken down in less than 24 h. Unless of course you are proposing that these medium structure to be like the current small structures and not have CONCORD protection.

It's much better for the game for players to actually have to defend their structures. It promotes players to work together for their own defense, or, come to alternative arrangements and say rent out a structures from each other or hire mercenaries to defend them. I am glad CCP finally has corrected the age-old error of POSes and I do not expect them to release structures ever again that are effectively immune from attack by other players.

To tie this back to the OP, these new structures are actually an example of CCP giving a tool to highsec content creators to make stuff happen in this game. I expect more, not less of these as we go forward. Now that structures can actually be attacked in highsec we now just need reasons, beyond wanton violence, to get players to attack each other. Citadels are building up at an alarming rate now that the initial excitement of popping them has died down, and we desperately need concrete reasons to go through the effort of a structure grind given citadels drop no loot of significance. There has to be something to fight over, or all you will have is ideologically-minded highsec content creators acting as aggressors, and there is nowhere near enough of them left to stave off the encroaching boredom and stagnation taking hold in highsec.

There should be reasons that all players want to be the aggressor from time-to-time to generate content and there just aren't enough of those reasons left in the game if there ever were.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Chopper Rollins
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#582 - 2016-06-25 11:46:52 UTC
So yeah like i said: bum-obliterated


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Rana Rama
State War Academy
Caldari State
#583 - 2016-06-25 12:01:24 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#584 - 2016-06-25 12:03:24 UTC
Every mechanic in the game that I can think of is based on the characters being 'real' beings. Everything that is done is an action by a character and in the sense that this is an 'RPG', our characters have no knowledge of us as players.

The AFK flag totally breaks that.

It's like a divine signal based on moving/clicking a mouse outside the game. If the player doesn't move the mouse in the required time (even though the character might do nothing), the flag activates.

It seems like a total change in the core of the game and in that regard, a mechanic that breaks immersion completely.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#585 - 2016-06-25 12:25:20 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
It is not a question of making it easier for corps in hisec, what I said about the medium Indy structure gives them what they have now if they do what they did with Citadels (7 days to pull it down) then that will make it worse for those hisec corps. But the L and XL which should have better bonuses requires that they are able to fight for it, that would make the game better by creating more meaningful hisec entities and like mining ship balance give people rewards for more risk and less rewards for better security.
Why shouldn't they have to fight for a medium structure? I don't see how letting players benefit from deploying a structure, but allowing them to shirk the responsibility of defending it makes the game better in any way. It isn't fun for the aggressor to be prevented from being allowed to attack a structure, and it can't be fun for the defender to have to keep folding up shop and hiding from any fight.

Eve is about risk vs. reward and there is literally zero risk in highsec for a structure that can be taken down in less than 24 h. Unless of course you are proposing that these medium structure to be like the current small structures and not have CONCORD protection.

It's much better for the game for players to actually have to defend their structures. It promotes players to work together for their own defense, or, come to alternative arrangements and say rent out a structures from each other or hire mercenaries to defend them. I am glad CCP finally has corrected the age-old error of POSes and I do not expect them to release structures ever again that are effectively immune from attack by other players.

To tie this back to the OP, these new structures are actually an example of CCP giving a tool to highsec content creators to make stuff happen in this game. I expect more, not less of these as we go forward. Now that structures can actually be attacked in highsec we now just need reasons, beyond wanton violence, to get players to attack each other. Citadels are building up at an alarming rate now that the initial excitement of popping them has died down, and we desperately need concrete reasons to go through the effort of a structure grind given citadels drop no loot of significance. There has to be something to fight over, or all you will have is ideologically-minded highsec content creators acting as aggressors, and there is nowhere near enough of them left to stave off the encroaching boredom and stagnation taking hold in highsec.

There should be reasons that all players want to be the aggressor from time-to-time to generate content and there just aren't enough of those reasons left in the game if there ever were.


No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now. This maintains the current level of balance which I believe is important. But the L and XL cannot be taken down within 24 hours but have better rewards, this means that you get a reward for being able to defend it or more risk.

The issue here is that the change will be too brutal, its a massive shock to the current structure of hisec in terms of those people being able to compete. Though I do have understanding of your point, because I want hisec to become more dynamic but I am focusing on the prey in hisec who could become a bit more then just people avoiding war decs, but killing hisec is not a good idea. You do recognise that hisec is effectively dead for any real meaningful combat, it is on life support basically.

It is likely when the anchoring of POS's and taking them down and the avoidance of war decs was not in the original game design, and yes CCP could just make it the same as a Citadel, 7 days. But I know that will be too heavy a blow to many people, CCP have to be careful here...

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#586 - 2016-06-25 12:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Every mechanic in the game that I can think of is based on the characters being 'real' beings. Everything that is done is an action by a character and in the sense that this is an 'RPG', our characters have no knowledge of us as players.

The AFK flag totally breaks that.

It's like a divine signal based on moving/clicking a mouse outside the game. If the player doesn't move the mouse in the required time (even though the character might do nothing), the flag activates.

It seems like a total change in the core of the game and in that regard, a mechanic that breaks immersion completely.



My immersion is broken by wasting time on someone not even playing, I would however make a change in terms of making it an observatory structure in addition to the one that gives you local intelligence in 0.0 which is what local is going to be changed to which is a damn good idea.

I really do not like the idea of messing with cloaks in anyway. CCP have even suggested to have some observatory that will work against cloaks and that does concern me as being too far.

But a game has to be fun, and this is a neat solution to getting around people who are not playing the game theerfore making it impossible for me to bait them, because they are not at their keyboard.

And I am quite happy to see people try to game it, at least they are at their keyboard...

EDIT: I am not going to reply to anything else in terms of AFK cloaking in this thread, because it is way off topic as this thread is about a persons perception that CCP are nerfing gankers too much. If you want to continue this discussion then feel free to talk about it in the thread I will start in ideas and suggestions.

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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#587 - 2016-06-25 12:54:44 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now. This maintains the current level of balance which I believe is important. But the L and XL cannot be taken down within 24 hours but have better rewards, this means that you get a reward for being able to defend it or more risk.
So, it is not ok to benefit from the benefit from the better rewards of a L or XL structure, but it is fine for a M? I don't get it.

Pure evasion is a non-fun strategy for either side. It should not be a viable way to play the game.

Dracvlad wrote:
The issue here is that the change will be too brutal, its a massive shock to the current structure of hisec in terms of those people being able to compete. Though I do have understanding of your point, because I want hisec to become more dynamic but I am focusing on the prey in hisec who could become a bit more then just people avoiding war decs, but killing hisec is not a good idea. You do recognise that hisec is effectively dead for any real meaningful combat, it is on life support basically.
Sometimes, you need to rip the Band-Aid off and set past wrongs right. Highsec is such a vacuum of interesting content because there are so few tools to generate content as the OP opined. You couldn't force fights given the ease of dodging wardecs and the ease of taking down POSes, nor was there any reason to fight in the first place given the excess of resources and lack of limited things to fight over. Desirable moons were one of the few things that would cause meaningful wars to happen, and now even the value of those are gone now with the new structures being anchorable anywhere. The new structures represent a small hope for interesting things to start happening again. Don't advocate for CCP to kill that out of sympathy for some whiny conflict-averse carebears who want to be playing a different game from Eve entirely.

Giving players an out of wars with the new structures would be the final nail in the coffin of highsec conflict. I don't see CCP doing that. Players will adapt, and perhaps even be able to make their own stories (by both attacking and defending them) using the new structures as conflict drivers as CCP promises the game should work.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#588 - 2016-06-25 13:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now. This maintains the current level of balance which I believe is important. But the L and XL cannot be taken down within 24 hours but have better rewards, this means that you get a reward for being able to defend it or more risk.
So, it is not ok to benefit from the benefit from the better rewards of a L or XL structure, but it is fine for a M? I don't get it.

Pure evasion is a non-fun strategy for either side. It should not be a viable way to play the game.

Dracvlad wrote:
The issue here is that the change will be too brutal, its a massive shock to the current structure of hisec in terms of those people being able to compete. Though I do have understanding of your point, because I want hisec to become more dynamic but I am focusing on the prey in hisec who could become a bit more then just people avoiding war decs, but killing hisec is not a good idea. You do recognise that hisec is effectively dead for any real meaningful combat, it is on life support basically.
Sometimes, you need to rip the Band-Aid off and set past wrongs right. Highsec is such a vacuum of interesting content because there are so few tools to generate content as the OP opined. You couldn't force fights given the ease of dodging wardecs and the ease of taking down POSes, nor was there any reason to fight in the first place given the excess of resources and lack of limited things to fight over. Desirable moons were one of the few things that would cause meaningful wars to happen, and now even the value of those are gone now with the new structures being anchorable anywhere. The new structures represent a small hope for interesting things to start happening again. Don't advocate for CCP to kill that out of sympathy for some whiny conflict-averse carebears who want to be playing a different game from Eve entirely.

Giving players an out of wars with the new structures would be the final nail in the coffin of highsec conflict. I don't see CCP doing that. Players will adapt, and perhaps even be able to make their own stories (by both attacking and defending them) using the new structures as conflict drivers as CCP promises the game should work.


As I said I have sympathy for what you are saying, however I think hisec is too far gone, it is on life support...

I think the observatory structures have a better chancefor combat drivers. Don't forget taht in terms of Indy structutes I am talking increased reward for increased risk, the objective is to get what you call as carebears to come out of their apathy and avoidance by building something better. I am not bothered by the alt corps of 0.0 players in hisec, my focus is on hisec players that want to build something. They should be rewarded for using a better structure, but can fall back to something smaller if they are out matched.

The simple answer is that if they have no chance they won't bother...

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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#589 - 2016-06-25 13:40:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Quote:


No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now. This maintains the current level of balance which I believe is important. But the L and XL cannot be taken down within 24 hours but have better rewards, this means that you get a reward for being able to defend it or more risk.

The issue here is that the change will be too brutal, its a massive shock to the current structure of hisec in terms of those people being able to compete. Though I do have understanding of your point, because I want hisec to become more dynamic but I am focusing on the prey in hisec who could become a bit more then just people avoiding war decs, but killing hisec is not a good idea. You do recognise that hisec is effectively dead for any real meaningful combat, it is on life support basically.

It is likely when the anchoring of POS's and taking them down and the avoidance of war decs was not in the original game design, and yes CCP could just make it the same as a Citadel, 7 days. But I know that will be too heavy a blow to many people, CCP have to be careful here...

Even from me.i like citadel being stuck.to face a warden.
The problem is not the inability.to avoid a Dec. The problem. Is the lack of defence/force multiplier on most citadel. Especially all sizes in high sec. Compared to a pos they are massively merged due to the critical reduction in the number of targets that can be engaged and the crippling lack of cap on the M citadel plus the ease of capping one out to disable all its wear.
This means it is too easy to take one down with even a slight numerical advantage as its pretty much just fleet vs fleet. With no significant advantage to the home ground structure owner. Especially in the environment of.high sec with all the rest of the meta.
The fall back should be npc. Stations which should be far less common in high sec for player access to provide more value to citadels.

Ps
To previous poster
High sec normally has more total value destroyed per month than null. We can argue over the Vale of that content. But let's not pretend nothing happens in high sec.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#590 - 2016-06-25 13:49:34 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

As I said I have sympathy for what you are saying, however I think hisec is too far gone, it is on life support...

I think the observatory structures have a better chancefor combat drivers. Don't forget taht in terms of Indy structutes I am talking increased reward for increased risk, the objective is to get what you call as carebears to come out of their apathy and avoidance by building something better. I am not bothered by the alt corps of 0.0 players in hisec, my focus is on hisec players that want to build something. They should be rewarded for using a better structure, but can fall back to something smaller if they are out matched.

The simple answer is that if they have no chance they won't bother...
How will observatory arrays generate conflict for the bulk of highsec residents? At best, they will only be useful for aggressors and give the current languishing state of highsec, that means 99% of highsec corps won't deploy them.

The whole point of structures is so the players take control of the universe and that they are destructible. Making them able to be taken down before a war completely circumvents that. It won't happen.

Players who want to just build can do that. There will still be NPC stations as well as the possibility to pay another player to use their structure if you have no interest in defending. But the era of enjoying rewards but avoiding all risk is coming to an end. Better late than never as it was a complete failure of game design that industrialists could deploy and use POSes to do competitive industry with no responsibility to defend their operation. Years of enabling constant evasion has done more to kill highsec PvP than almost any other mistake CCP has made.

Players need to get used to attacking, defending and losing assets again. Too much of a culture of loss-aversion has taken hold everywhere in this game and it paralyzing players to the point no one does anything. It is not the end of the world if someone blows up your industrial structure especially given your stuff is magically teleported to safety. Try to defend it, and if you fail learn from your loss and try again.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#591 - 2016-06-25 14:03:15 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

As I said I have sympathy for what you are saying, however I think hisec is too far gone, it is on life support...

I think the observatory structures have a better chancefor combat drivers. Don't forget taht in terms of Indy structutes I am talking increased reward for increased risk, the objective is to get what you call as carebears to come out of their apathy and avoidance by building something better. I am not bothered by the alt corps of 0.0 players in hisec, my focus is on hisec players that want to build something. They should be rewarded for using a better structure, but can fall back to something smaller if they are out matched.

The simple answer is that if they have no chance they won't bother...
How will observatory arrays generate conflict for the bulk of highsec residents? At best, they will only be useful for aggressors and give the current languishing state of highsec, that means 99% of highsec corps won't deploy them.

The whole point of structures is so the players take control of the universe and that they are destructible. Making them able to be taken down before a war completely circumvents that. It won't happen.

Players who want to just build can do that. There will still be NPC stations as well as the possibility to pay another player to use their structure if you have no interest in defending. But the era of enjoying rewards but avoiding all risk is coming to an end. Better late than never as it was a complete failure of game design that industrialists could deploy and use POSes to do competitive industry with no responsibility to defend their operation. Years of enabling constant evasion has done more to kill highsec PvP than almost any other mistake CCP has made.

Players need to get used to attacking, defending and losing assets again. Too much of a culture of loss-aversion has taken hold everywhere in this game and it paralyzing players to the point no one does anything. It is not the end of the world if someone blows up your industrial structure especially given your stuff is magically teleported to safety. Try to defend it, and if you fail learn from your loss and try again.


Lets say that CCP make an Observatory Structure that gives watch list capabilities in a constellation, which also tells them the system they are in, Mercs would install them to get back their watch list and more. On the other hand its a target that an entity that is war dec'd can go and hit it, as it has meaningful strategic value. This should cause a feeling of being able to fight back and creating a more get up and go attitude rather than the fatalistic attitude we have now, this could cause actual fights to happen. Also means taht I can be a pain for being war dec'd by certain people, which I like the idea off and if I get blown up so what... I have something of strategic value to them which I can interdict and they have something of strategic value to defend...

Its a war related structure that is worth something, not an indy one.

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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#592 - 2016-06-25 14:37:07 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets say that CCP make an Observatory Structure that gives watch list capabilities in a constellation, which also tells them the system they are in, Mercs would install them to get back their watch list and more. On the other hand its a target that an entity that is war dec'd can go and hit it, as it has meaningful strategic value. This should cause a feeling of being able to fight back and creating a more get up and go attitude rather than the fatalistic attitude we have now, this could cause actual fights to happen. Also means taht I can be a pain for being war dec'd by certain people, which I like the idea off and if I get blown up so what... I have something of strategic value to them which I can interdict and they have something of strategic value to defend...

Its a war related structure that is worth something, not an indy one.
Sure, I am all for something to counter-attack. But there has to be a reason for someone to attack in the first place. Industrial structures are suppose to be that conflict-driver. As it is, there is almost no reason for corps to fight each other except for killmails or loot, or perhaps the love of the fight, reasons industrialists are quick to call "griefing".

Highsec needs more limited resources, things that your average corp will be motivated to fight over. Bonuses for missioning, mining, or industry, or perhaps a special agents or valuable sources of resources (analogous to POCOs and mineral moons). Things that another group might decide they want and initiate a war over. Otherwise, highsec will continue to be a place where the vast majority players seek to avoid conflict in order to maximize profits and nothing especially meaningful happens.

The new structures are a good start to force players to defend, but now we need some inducement to attack.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#593 - 2016-06-25 14:38:25 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Quote:


No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now. This maintains the current level of balance which I believe is important. But the L and XL cannot be taken down within 24 hours but have better rewards, this means that you get a reward for being able to defend it or more risk.

The issue here is that the change will be too brutal, its a massive shock to the current structure of hisec in terms of those people being able to compete. Though I do have understanding of your point, because I want hisec to become more dynamic but I am focusing on the prey in hisec who could become a bit more then just people avoiding war decs, but killing hisec is not a good idea. You do recognise that hisec is effectively dead for any real meaningful combat, it is on life support basically.

It is likely when the anchoring of POS's and taking them down and the avoidance of war decs was not in the original game design, and yes CCP could just make it the same as a Citadel, 7 days. But I know that will be too heavy a blow to many people, CCP have to be careful here...

Even from me.i like citadel being stuck.to face a warden.
The problem is not the inability.to avoid a Dec. The problem. Is the lack of defence/force multiplier on most citadel. Especially all sizes in high sec. Compared to a pos they are massively merged due to the critical reduction in the number of targets that can be engaged and the crippling lack of cap on the M citadel plus the ease of capping one out to disable all its wear.
This means it is too easy to take one down with even a slight numerical advantage as its pretty much just fleet vs fleet. With no significant advantage to the home ground structure owner. Especially in the environment of.high sec with all the rest of the meta.
The fall back should be npc. Stations which should be far less common in high sec for player access to provide more value to citadels.

Ps
To previous poster
High sec normally has more total value destroyed per month than null. We can argue over the Vale of that content. But let's not pretend nothing happens in high sec.


I like it too in terms of Citadels. In terms of your points on the Citadel, I have not attacked one or defended one so I have no real in game kowledge to speak off, I have looked at a number of people who attacked them and read some people talking how they tried to defend them. The feeling is that they are an effective force multiplier to a point, but are useless in terms of defending themselves. The biggest issue is that the majority of people who put them up did not have the ability to field a fleet to make use of them properly as far as I have seen.

So we get to the indy structure which will be weaker than the Citadel... So my conclusion is that Indy structures will make no difference at all to hisec and may make it even worse as people just give up completely.

Personally my only hope is the Observatory structure, I think the indy structures will be too easy and a certain loss, the only thing taht will help them is if they can be parked next to a Citadel or they are so cheap that there is so many of them that it hardly matters and is like a school of fish.

In any case they will not change a thing and could make it much worse.

As for removing NPC stations, damn that would be annoying, I only play at indy to make some stuff, I already hate the hell out of invention, in fact I am at the point of giving up, its that annoying to me. In some cases I could just say what the hell and don't bother, and that is what may happen. In fact I just realised I have given up, the last attempt I made to invent something was two weeks ago... Big smileShockedRoll Yep ain't doing that...

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#594 - 2016-06-25 15:26:59 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets say that CCP make an Observatory Structure that gives watch list capabilities in a constellation, which also tells them the system they are in, Mercs would install them to get back their watch list and more. On the other hand its a target that an entity that is war dec'd can go and hit it, as it has meaningful strategic value. This should cause a feeling of being able to fight back and creating a more get up and go attitude rather than the fatalistic attitude we have now, this could cause actual fights to happen. Also means taht I can be a pain for being war dec'd by certain people, which I like the idea off and if I get blown up so what... I have something of strategic value to them which I can interdict and they have something of strategic value to defend...

Its a war related structure that is worth something, not an indy one.
Sure, I am all for something to counter-attack. But there has to be a reason for someone to attack in the first place. Industrial structures are suppose to be that conflict-driver. As it is, there is almost no reason for corps to fight each other except for killmails or loot, or perhaps the love of the fight, reasons industrialists are quick to call "griefing".

Highsec needs more limited resources, things that your average corp will be motivated to fight over. Bonuses for missioning, mining, or industry, or perhaps a special agents or valuable sources of resources (analogous to POCOs and mineral moons). Things that another group might decide they want and initiate a war over. Otherwise, highsec will continue to be a place where the vast majority players seek to avoid conflict in order to maximize profits and nothing especially meaningful happens.

The new structures are a good start to force players to defend, but now we need some inducement to attack.


Because you can, that is why you gank is it not? Or you want targets to shoot that drop loot or you want ship kills or force people to play a certain way, seems enough there for you. I don't think its griefing, I tend to look at people trying to get at the player as erring towards griefing, but often thta is part of conflict, you want them a bit mad and stupid so they commit or make mistakes. That's why griefing is such an emotive word as it is misused by both sides.

Hisec is full of people who are avoiding conflict, such as the indy alts of 0.0 players, so what. What you want is an environment where those that stand up for themselves are rewarded, the reward you get now is yawn, another war dec by more pipe and hub campers... When I get a war dec from one of the war dec entities I immediately cannot be bothered, chance to see some GTFO ship running away, can do that in 0.0 which is more fun, bubbles and more bubbles.

And if you make it devoid of resources then even less will happen which is what these Indy structures will actually do. I have a feeling that the Indy Structures may be the death knell of hisec unless they are as cheap as hell and I don't see that. being the case...





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
Chopper Rollins
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#595 - 2016-06-25 15:52:07 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
What you want is an environment where those that stand up for themselves are rewarded


Why does everything have to be 'rewarding'?
What happened to doing things for their own sake, or for the interest value, or the challenge?
No semantics play please, if every reason is a reward then nothing is without reward.
Now this 'standing up for yourself' is an entirely neutral notion that in no way should entail a payoff of any kind. If a corp of seven explorers are insubordinate to me in local and find themselves getting wasted in their missions and blapped while hacking, well no amount of standing up for themselves is going to make any difference. They can fight back (bad move), move far away (minor inconvenience) or log off. Getting assistance or dropping corp are options, but 'standing up for yourself' is so vague a plan that it might often involve horrifying losses.
I have met a corp that, when faced with the wardecs they attracted by insisting on living and mining within 5 jumps of Jita, actually moved into a wormhole. That didn't go well.
TLDR: a competitive environment should NOT reward 'standing up for yourself'. Powerful, skilled warlords don't stand up for themselves, they swagger around charging a tax on anyone else's use of what they consider theirs. Fight back or get lost.





Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#596 - 2016-06-25 16:24:03 UTC
When I read "content creation", I read "gang-banging defenceless targets", I don't read PVP.

I FW on an alt, that's the sole-purpose of his existence, and FW is awful. It's scarcely FW because it's neutrals, dropping into plexes with fleets and 'wrecking' those actually trying to undertake FW. The fix is pretty simple, don't allow neutrals to use acceleration gates. Require them to be in FW to enter the plexes. It won't happen.

If hi-sec PVP is to improve, it needs to be more than gang-banging soft-targets. The new indy structures don't look like they will change this, the fundamental of the economy, industrials will be their own structure with weaker defences than the already squishy Citadel. There's a slim chance that 'emergent' game play, will lead some of the PVP corporations to protect their industrial counter-parts, but enlightened self-interest in EVE is not oft seen.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#597 - 2016-06-25 16:28:32 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
What you want is an environment where those that stand up for themselves are rewarded

They can fight back (bad move), move far away (minor inconvenience) or log off. Getting assistance or dropping corp are options, but 'standing up for yourself' is so vague a plan that it might often involve horrifying losses."


That sounds like an amazing game: EVE Online S&M release. Pay your $15 a month, be subordinate, and your ultimate defence is not to play?
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#598 - 2016-06-25 16:58:20 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

Because you can, that is why you gank is it not? Or you want targets to shoot that drop loot or you want ship kills or force people to play a certain way, seems enough there for you. I don't think its griefing, I tend to look at people trying to get at the player as erring towards griefing, but often thta is part of conflict, you want them a bit mad and stupid so they commit or make mistakes. That's why griefing is such an emotive word as it is misused by both sides.

Hisec is full of people who are avoiding conflict, such as the indy alts of 0.0 players, so what. What you want is an environment where those that stand up for themselves are rewarded, the reward you get now is yawn, another war dec by more pipe and hub campers... When I get a war dec from one of the war dec entities I immediately cannot be bothered, chance to see some GTFO ship running away, can do that in 0.0 which is more fun, bubbles and more bubbles.

And if you make it devoid of resources then even less will happen which is what these Indy structures will actually do. I have a feeling that the Indy Structures may be the death knell of hisec unless they are as cheap as hell and I don't see that. being the case...


This.

Industry is the basis of the economy in a sandbox environment. If industry is exposed to continuous open war. Prices will rise and their will be fewer industry players. If they plan to remove NPC stations, they really need to think about this carefully, and the plans we've seen for industry structures don't give me comfort.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#599 - 2016-06-25 20:45:10 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

What, that your attempt with a throw away line was wrong or using buzzwords, wow I am so not impressed, in any case another insult, all this twaddle about emergent gameplay makes me laugh, its like saying a complex word and thinking it makes you look smart. Look you even started with that stupid Malcanis law, and you know very well that the watch list change was because it was used to keep a watch on capital fleets which made use of Supers and Titans an end game escalation, now people are taking risks with Supers and Titans, which is great, but the knock on effect is the impact to Mercs in hisec who actually hunted. See CCP made a change to benefit one group, and damaged another, I told them how to use the chat and block to be able to see when people are online, but they are too lazy to do that as they like block war decs, so the mercs failed that test.

It is not a question of making it easier for corps in hisec, what I said about the medium Indy structure gives them what they have now if they do what they did with Citadels (7 days to pull it down) then that will make it worse for those hisec corps. But the L and XL which should have better bonuses requires that they are able to fight for it, that would make the game better by creating more meaningful hisec entities and like mining ship balance give people rewards for more risk and less rewards for better security.


I disagree with your characterization of the watch list change. Free intel is just bad. Removing it is good overall because it removes something that is bad. Yes, some groups benefit others don't. But my point wasn't that changes won't have such effects, but that CCP should not let those effects influence their decision making.

So when it comes to citadels, the issues of "oh it is bad for these little guys" should not be the main question, but "is it good for the game overall". Maybe 7 days is too long, but saying, "Oh I'll be hurt," or "Small corps will be hurt, don't do it." Is changing mechanics to benefit a subset of the players. This is what can and often does lead to bad mechanics getting into the game. Because you cater to Group A, then Group B realizes they an use it to their advantage.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#600 - 2016-06-25 22:36:55 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


No I am suggesting that they can pull the medium structures within 24 hours of a war dec so they have in effect what they have now.

[snip]


Why? Just because it fits with the status quo is pretty weak justification.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online