These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec rebalance reviewed
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#21 - 2016-11-03 14:16:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Black Pedro wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
i disagree on 3 points
1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh
2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games
3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike!
You proposed making war into a silly game where players shoot each other's structures for no other reason but to earn safety from each other's attacks. I don't see how that makes for better game play for anyone.

Grief play is explicitly banned as described in the quote I provided. It is against the EULA and not allowed. It so happens, that non-consensual wars are not considered "griefing" by CCP and are part of the game. If you don't like that, the problem is with you not the game.

And no, CCP says "[t]he essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." (p.22) There is no place for pure PvE gameplay and never has been for the last 13 years.

I think the only problem here is your expectations. Eve Online is not the game you think it is or wish it to be.


i disagree of what it say, tru PVP is part of EVE, and but you make it out like, that PVE do belong in EVE, and think you dead wrong,
i agree that you should be able to completly awoid PVP, but that does exclude making a better and more fair system!

and you welcome to pitch in whit any idea you might have how that can be done! :)
My Dream
Doomheim
#22 - 2016-11-03 14:23:38 UTC
the trouble is black pedro and others that hold there views dont actually want a Sandbox . what they describe is a PVP themepark
Black Pedro
Mine.
#23 - 2016-11-03 14:32:19 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

i disagree of what it say, tru PVP is part of EVE, and but you make it out like, that PVE do belong in EVE, and think you dead wrong,
i agree that you should be able to completly awoid PVP, but that does exclude making a better and more fair system!

and you welcome to pitch in whit any idea you might have how that can be done! :)
I did no such thing - PvE certainly belongs in Eve Online. PvE is an integral part of the game and much of all our game time is spent doing it.

However, what you don't seem to realize that the fundamental purpose of PvE in this game is to induce players to make themselves vulnerable to the other players in exchange for a reward. All, and I mean all, PvE is engineered such that it puts you at risk to attack by the other players. That is how a PvP sandbox game works, risk vs. reward and all that. There is no place for 100% safe PvE in such a system. This is the social compact of Eve - you make yourself a target (that is offer yourself up as content to the other players) and you get rewards.

Wars can be improved yes, but not by adding yet more ways for players to avoid them or make themselves immune to them. You want an idea? Ok, simply implement a social corp that is immune to wars. This pseudo-corp cannot tax, deploy structures, have a shared hanger or any other of the benefits of a real player corporation other than a logo, calendar and a chat channel and has a maximum number of corp members. Players that don't want to compete can form a social corp with their friends, which is essentially indistinguishable from the NPC corp, and mine or mission or whatever with no risk of wars.

There done. Risk vs. reward is respected, and competition between "real" corps is allowed to go on unhindered by your selfish desire to nerf all conflict out of highsec because you personally don't want to compete. Please, stop trying to kill the PvP game for the rest of us that we signed up to play.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#24 - 2016-11-03 14:46:18 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?

None? Didn't think so.

You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.

And yours is typical war dec player thinking, just say no to any changes instead of offering a compromise proposal.
War decs in high sec are a major problem that needs to be addressed and the unwillingness to change as displayed by your comments here only deepens the problems. The CSM has taken note of the war dec problems and has started looking into them (see link above in Scipio Artelius post) and how they might be changed. Instead of the attitude you display here which makes you a part of the problem perhaps you could become a part of the solution by offering counter proposals, or ideas to change the parts of the OP idea you do not like.

Scipio Artelius thank you for the link, that is an article I had not seen. Interesting ideas and hopefully I will have time this weekend to watch the video clip. Various forms of structure based war decs have been proposed here on many occasions and they have usually met with nothing but negative comments from the war dec crowd, one has to wonder if this idea will fare any better.

My personal thoughts in basic are simple.
Both sides need to have a way to win the war by virtue of force. Defenders win the war ends immediately, aggressors wins the war continues.

Unlike current mechanics the aggressors need some way to end a war when they want, a way that does not require them to surrender but still allows them to end the war before the current week is up.

Relative size of aggressor versus defenders needs to be looked at and controlled as well, and yes I would encourage removing or altering the current allies mechanic as a part of this because it does not work well especially for the aggressors.

War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#25 - 2016-11-03 17:02:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Thank you for you serious reply! :)
and agree with you on all points,
and i do wish that the wardec pll would contribute with a little more, then just there is no problem!
from my point of view, it seems a little like the guy whit big stick, beating up the guy with none,
while telling him it's fair! and it's his own fault for not having the stick!




Donnachadh wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?

None? Didn't think so.

You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.

And yours is typical war dec player thinking, just say no to any changes instead of offering a compromise proposal.
War decs in high sec are a major problem that needs to be addressed and the unwillingness to change as displayed by your comments here only deepens the problems. The CSM has taken note of the war dec problems and has started looking into them (see link above in Scipio Artelius post) and how they might be changed. Instead of the attitude you display here which makes you a part of the problem perhaps you could become a part of the solution by offering counter proposals, or ideas to change the parts of the OP idea you do not like.

Scipio Artelius thank you for the link, that is an article I had not seen. Interesting ideas and hopefully I will have time this weekend to watch the video clip. Various forms of structure based war decs have been proposed here on many occasions and they have usually met with nothing but negative comments from the war dec crowd, one has to wonder if this idea will fare any better.

My personal thoughts in basic are simple.
Both sides need to have a way to win the war by virtue of force. Defenders win the war ends immediately, aggressors wins the war continues.

Unlike current mechanics the aggressors need some way to end a war when they want, a way that does not require them to surrender but still allows them to end the war before the current week is up.

Relative size of aggressor versus defenders needs to be looked at and controlled as well, and yes I would encourage removing or altering the current allies mechanic as a part of this because it does not work well especially for the aggressors.

War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well.
Undertaker Service
The New Eden Yacht Club
The New Eden Yacht Club.
#26 - 2016-11-03 17:08:41 UTC
War should be a result of a dispute between two groups. Not a tool to harass and ruin corporations for no reason. The way the war mechanics now work is massively flawed. Its just a content and isk generator for HS wardec groups who have countless wars going at the same time. There hardly ever is a reason for a war.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#27 - 2016-11-03 17:43:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
My Dream wrote:


your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way

many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode

if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player


It is a home to all types of player, but you are dead wrong if you think you have a right to be left alone. EVE is a PvP game, and that means at ALL times. So you dont have to seek out PvP, but it can happen at anytime by the very nature of the sandbox.

Quote:

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".


Quote:
There is no such thing as "a fair fight" or "an unfair fight". There's only a fight. Circumstances are irrelevant.


Source

Thats what a sandbox really is.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2016-11-03 18:08:36 UTC
Only problem I have with wardecs as such is that the defenders have no way to 'win' and end the war.

Perhaps if the aggressor loses more isk in ships in any day than the defenders they should be deemed to have lost? Some means to stop aggressors from just docking up would be required. Maybe some method of defenders 'Calling Out' the aggressors to fight, and if they don't come out they are deemed to 'lose face' until they reach a point where they are laughed out of the war (gunslinger style, everyone else takes cover in the saloons in the citadel nearby to watch...)

Just random thoughts from a sleep deprived brain :D
John Yatolile
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#29 - 2016-11-03 18:28:18 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
I simple thought, a lot the high sec "PVP" players say they are doing for the PVP content!
why not go low/nul or WH? you are more less ensurede to get into pvp battles there?
free of spending isk on wardec!

because they don't have to
Hi sec deccers are scrubs, but that doesn't mean they have to be forced in low or null
EVE has been, always was, and always will be a game where winning is causing your target as much """""""""pain""""""""" as possible
Please stop crying and learn to join people who can fight or learn yourself
Gankers can be beaten to submission just as you can
Greifing is more central to EVE than carebearing as carbearing is more often a means to that end
John Yatolile
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#30 - 2016-11-03 18:30:49 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
[quote=Shae Tadaruwa]War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well.

nothing in eve needs enjoyment for both sides
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#31 - 2016-11-03 18:31:42 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
it seems a little like the guy whit big stick, beating up the guy with none,
while telling him it's fair! and it's his own fault for not having the stick!

and ...

in a game where anyone is allowed to hit anyone as hard and often , with as big a stick as they choose,
it very much is your fault for not having one.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
My Dream
Doomheim
#32 - 2016-11-03 18:42:55 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
My Dream wrote:


your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way

many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode

if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player


It is a home to all types of player, but you are dead wrong if you think you have a right to be left alone. EVE is a PvP game, and that means at ALL times. So you dont have to seek out PvP, but it can happen at anytime by the very nature of the sandbox.

Quote:

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".


Quote:
There is no such thing as "a fair fight" or "an unfair fight". There's only a fight. Circumstances are irrelevant.


Source

Thats what a sandbox really is.



stop using the term sandbox and atleast have the honesty to say you want eve to be a PVP themepark

frankly theres nothing more carebearish than forming a gank squad against week old newbros and pretending its PVP
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#33 - 2016-11-03 18:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
My Dream wrote:
your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way
I take it that you're ok with the carebear view that seeks to curtail and infringe on the activities of those that choose to prey on them?

Quote:
many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode
Sandbox means that you can try to play the way that you want to, it also means that other people can also try to play the way that they want; even if that choice means interfering with the game play of others. The whole game is biased towards promoting the conflict that happens when your playstyle meets that of somebody else.

Quote:
if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player
It does provide a home for all types of player. Eve is a PvP sandbox with PvE elements, if someone is not willing to defend their right to engage in the playstyle they choose then they're playing the wrong game

I'm what many would call a bear, I play Eve for the PvE and to shoot the breeze with the various people I've meet along my journey through it; I avoid the attentions of predators such as Ralph, much as he would like my corpse for his collection P, by virtue of how I choose to do it.

Wardecs aren't a problem, they're trivial to avoid without resorting to the commonplace and easy option of rolling or dropping corp. If more people thought about what they were doing when they undock, with or without an active war, they wouldn't make themselves easy meat for other players.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#34 - 2016-11-03 19:04:37 UTC
My Dream wrote:
your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way

Might=Right

you want peace and tranquility , you are welcome to it

if

you can make it so despite all of us.

thats truer to the sandbox ideal than having your padded little corner where only "kind hands" and soothing words are allowed.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Black Pedro
Mine.
#35 - 2016-11-03 19:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Only problem I have with wardecs as such is that the defenders have no way to 'win' and end the war.
CCP will never give defenders a way to end the war. Not only is that too much power for large groups who can then just blob their way out of any war, it is completely incompatible with how the structures are suppose to be exploded. You need two wardecs to even have a chance to explode one of them, and CCP will never let you out of having to defend your structure in highsec by the fiat of ending a war.

That said, I am not against some sort of structure that the aggressors are encouraged or forced to use so there is something at risk and for the defender to counter-attack. That could actually generate some some player-player content, not kill interaction like this perrenial bad idea of giving players the ability to end wars.

Eve is a full-time, PvP sandbox game. How is it compatible to give players the ability to make themselves immune to attack from the other players even as a reward for fighting?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2016-11-03 19:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Donnachadh wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?

None? Didn't think so.

You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.

And yours is typical war dec player thinking, just say no to any changes instead of offering a compromise proposal.
War decs in high sec are a major problem that needs to be addressed and the unwillingness to change as displayed by your comments here only deepens the problems. The CSM has taken note of the war dec problems and has started looking into them (see link above in Scipio Artelius post) and how they might be changed. Instead of the attitude you display here which makes you a part of the problem perhaps you could become a part of the solution by offering counter proposals, or ideas to change the parts of the OP idea you do not like.

Scipio Artelius thank you for the link, that is an article I had not seen. Interesting ideas and hopefully I will have time this weekend to watch the video clip. Various forms of structure based war decs have been proposed here on many occasions and they have usually met with nothing but negative comments from the war dec crowd, one has to wonder if this idea will fare any better.

My personal thoughts in basic are simple.
Both sides need to have a way to win the war by virtue of force. Defenders win the war ends immediately, aggressors wins the war continues.

Unlike current mechanics the aggressors need some way to end a war when they want, a way that does not require them to surrender but still allows them to end the war before the current week is up.

Relative size of aggressor versus defenders needs to be looked at and controlled as well, and yes I would encourage removing or altering the current allies mechanic as a part of this because it does not work well especially for the aggressors.

War decs need to have an element of enjoyment for both sides. Not sure it is possible but that should be a consideration in any changes as well.

Bullshit. Don't be such a weak minded wanker.

I'm not a wardeccer. I'm an industrialist and hauler.

Dumb stupid, wrong assumptions that are typical of you. Change is fine. This sort of "get out of jail free Carebear" proposal is BS.

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..."
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#37 - 2016-11-03 19:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
I'm not a wardeccer. I'm an industrialist and hauler.

Dumb stupid, wrong assumptions that are typical of you. Change is fine. This sort of "get out of jail free Carebear" proposal is BS.
As a serial killer of NPCs and small time industrialist, I get this a lot.

Some people don't understand that while we may share their general playstyle we don't share their narrative, viewpoints and opinions; because they often bear no relation to the actual game and are generally shite.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#38 - 2016-11-03 19:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
I'll just point out here that we are where we are explicitly because of aggressive, targeted wars being gutted.

This was not an issue six months ago and it's not an issue that will be sorted by further restraints upon solely the aggressors.

Listen to the roundtable, we are far more open to restructuring wars abd thew way they function than ye realise,
just only if that restructuring makes sense and is reasonable for all.

Structures like the one suggested in the op came up and vimsy explained at length what the issues with it were.

In short :
ok so ye say "whooo , something in space i can target wheeeee"

fine, in principal thats understandable given how much neutral alt-play comes with mercing these days.
i get that i do.

what vimsy and i been trying to point out is that the best way to defend these things will invariably be to plant a blob on them, or have one on stand by.

if you cant field the sort of blob required you will not be inclined to try and rub shoulders with the sorts of lads that can
because the will beat the ever living **** out of you.
so
you dont bother signing up for a ploughing from the estabelished lads at all, you join an alliance that has this setup already,
or
you grow to avoid getting battered,
to sustain interest for your increased numbers you need to get more content (more wars),
go to choke points and catch the through traffic.
without some seriously tight knit and extremely patient and dedicated guys you have to do this because of the colossal level of work required to actively track and hunt .
(and why were we having this conversation again?)

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#39 - 2016-11-03 22:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
My Dream wrote:
your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way

many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode

if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player

As this is a wardec thread, I don't quite see how it infringes on any players choice to play peacefully.

NPC Corps are 100%, completely immune from wardecs.

Any player, wanting to avoid wardecs and never have any aggression associated with the mechanics can simply choose to be in an NPC Corp.

They can still play socially. Nothing about being in an NPC Corp prevents that and there are many examples where NPC Corps provide a home for players that just wish to do their own thing peacefully.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#40 - 2016-11-03 23:17:56 UTC
My Dream wrote:
[quote=Daichi Yamato]


stop using the term sandbox and atleast have the honesty to say you want eve to be a PVP themepark

frankly theres nothing more carebearish than forming a gank squad against week old newbros and pretending its PVP


You don't know what a sandbox or theme park is do you?

Like the others, i only occasionally pvp and that's mostly in faction warfare. I honestly haven't decced in a long time. But this is a full pvp sandbox game whether you like it or not. The quicker you understand that the better off we will all be.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs