These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Vic Jefferson for CSM XII

Author
Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#21 - 2017-02-09 02:45:58 UTC
Valkin Mordirc, you have a lot of valid points in your post - I will try to address each one.

Valkin Mordirc wrote:

Stifle what content? They do not stifle content. They stop the content of PVE'ers. Not content in general.

And to be perfectly honest. Not everybody wants what you describe. Most Highsec PVE alliance, and I mean true HS PVE Alliance, not a PVE corp inside a lowsec alliance, want to be left alone. Most PVE'ers are PVE'ers and do not like PVP interaction. So what you get is two conflicting systems. One which wants to fight and win, and other which wants to be ignored.

This interaction obviously doesn't mix well.


So let's talk. What PvE people say they want, what people in general say they want, and what they actually want are not necessarily the same thing. Generally you can be more sure of what they say when there's good evidence they have a broader and deeper amount of experiences and knowledge going into their opinion. If PvE is all they have ever known, and in some cases it regrettably is, how much do I really trust they like it, having tried none of the alternatives?

In this context - PvE is often the only aspect of the game they actually know and can say with confidence that they like. Have they tried jousting spaceships? Certainly the success of groups like Spectre and other assorted NPSI groups shows there is a large market for trying to break into what is a very, at first, confusing and punishing aspect of the game - PvP. When their first experience is just outright being denied their game play with no substitute, they will tend to have a terrible experience with it. I can say that a healthy amount of players that I have talked to, myself included, started as a missioner and gradually realized it was the worst part of the game once they had proper exposure to the really fun parts. That's where the problem is, the first experiences shouldn't be a denial of what they currently consider fun, they should be engaging in other ways. Carrots, not sticks.

As I detailed in a previous post, they need to see something tangible other than making you dock, to actually want to put effort in. You took their PvE paradise of rats and LP - what can they either take from you, or do to get that state back? If the answer is neither to both, than you can expect non-participation, which doesn't exactly inspire the player base.


Valkin Mordirc wrote:
You force them to stay docked.


While that is tactically and technically correct, it's not a victory condition most people are either excited to work towards, nor is it really all that engaging. While CCP hasn't nearly eradicated mechanics which encourage these tactics, and neither have player groups stopped using them as a crutch, I think we can all agree that is not an optimal solution. There needs to be a penalty for not participating in a war that you started.


Valkin Mordirc wrote:
But I do not like the overall tone of your post making it seem like the defending corps are completely helpless.


Perhaps you are correct. Maybe. Cool

So here's the deal. Most things in eve are an acquired taste. Someone else shows you an aspect of the game. Sometimes people do this though blogs or YouTube videos, or whatever, but usually its a friend or acquaintance that makes it interesting enough to check out. Maybe you and I both know a decced corp is not helpless. Yes, they could make you dock up and deny you content. We may have a developed a taste and an appreciation for this after probably many years.

However, it is an aquired taste. You can't expect everyone to like it the first time. Not without instruction. Heck it could be years before the subtleties of such a taste can even make themselves known to a palette that has only known shallow games in today's fast-food pay to win game design climate. A lot of people would probably like jousting space ships if their first experience with it wasn't so negative, where the best solution (as they see it) was non-participation.

I'm not against Hi-Sec antagonism. Heck, I've done my fair share of it. If you want a more interesting game, a game which encourages participation, a game which more people will stick with to learn to taste and savor those subtleties, a more apparent and exciting goal or anti-goal is needed to make wardecs something that will generate content more often, for a wider variety of players, and provide a positive experience where their view of the game is widened. Go ahead and smash their fleets with T3Cs and over-comped logi, sure, they still have to physically win a fleet fight, but at least give them an objective they could win - just as you always retain the ability to deny them their PvE paradise, it seems only fair that they should be able to deny you, in some way, the ability to keep decs up indefinitely.

I do not like one size fit solutions. Phoebe's jump range changes did reign in a lot of the silliness with the game, but it really did put a hamper on legitimate use of capitals. In the same vein, I would hate for any change to wardecs to affect legitimate merc activity just because the blue-doughnut of blanket deccers are, at least in my appraisal, abusing the mechanic. Whatever the fix is, it must be not hamper the legitimate use of wardecs.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Mortlake
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
#22 - 2017-02-09 22:52:57 UTC
I like Vic.

I joined his alliance on my very first safari. He gave me money and good advice and I didn't steal from them because they were so nice.

He's a good guy, and very knowledgable. Unfortunately this niceness forced me to create another alt and steal from someone else, but hey that's EvE, right?

Sometimes you hit the bar and sometimes the bar hits you...

Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#23 - 2017-02-11 03:57:32 UTC
Sending out an E.S.S.


Let's talk about content.

On paper, on release, the ESS was probably one of the best single ideas in years. In one new item, you had a way to make nullsec more profitable, have a way for ratters to risk a little bit more to gain more rewards, fight liquid ISK inflation via the LP earned, and a content seed for small gangs to actually get some interaction with the locals. Perfect! Players soon realized that the rats could do their dirty work for them. Content seed lost. I presume they haven't really examined this or revisited it, potentially waiting on some grand revision of rat AI. It's sort of a shame, it has the potential to solve so many ills all at once. Defending your home should mean more than timers - active defense and curating of your space should yield far more substantive rewards than it does; the game should be heading towards more mechanisms that reward participation and 'active' mechanics. I would think it would be great to revisit the ESS.

On paper, the mobile siphon unit was probably one of the best single ideas in years. In one new item, you had a way to steal from the rich and give yourself! Perfect! Players soon realized that the API could give them instant, free, reliable intel as to make the siphons anything but covert. Content seed lost, liabilities, lost. I presume they have not revisited these due to the 'imminent' removal of PoS....when imminent is measured in years. They were a great idea that got very little support. I wonder why. What? Just saying, If I was on the CSM, I wouldn't be beholden to any interests which quite frankly, were probably quite happy with the siphons performance.

Citadels may be the very impetus for big ticket content, but they are harming content generation among smaller groups. No longer can you try and force a fight on a station during a small roam - the defenders can force youa off without ever risking anything. I hate to say it but EvE is becoming way too safe - the entire charm of the game was that all risks weren't voluntary.



Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Shelly en Tilavine
Blue Cyno Cult
Clockwork Pineapple
#24 - 2017-02-11 06:27:44 UTC
I fly with Vic and he knows and loves this game.

+1
Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#25 - 2017-02-17 22:01:36 UTC
So here's the deal. EvE has the highest degree of character customization of any game out there. There is no other game I can think of where who you associate with and what you do so fundamentally define who you are. You can literally be whomever you want, with no restrictions. That's quasi-infinite character customization - it's part of what makes EvE such a good game, and contributes greatly to its longevity - no templates to follow, no lists to complete, you are whomever you want to be.

EvE has a lot of notable personalities and organizations, and no shortage of enmity between them. There are so many unique ways, so many non-trivial ways, for your character to define itself both by association and action, that there really isn't a pressing need for more development time on avatar play or cosmetics, thus I really don't have an opinion on it. A finished captain's quarters probably won't change all that much - revitalizing NPC null or energizing lowsec just might break some of the stagnation the game is currently facing, thus that's where my thoughts generally are, and, at least in my opinion, where the game needs the most development.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#26 - 2017-03-01 22:10:54 UTC
PvE shouldn’t be this DED – Power back to the players.

When I started playing, the pirate hulls and deadspace loot which came from DEDs was big business. Living in Syndicate, the sites were more than static rats waiting to be farmed – they were contested and fought over by the lean, starving residents of NPC null as some of their only income. Some of my best memories that got me hooked were of fighting over these sites – a fundamental departure from the skinner-box raids of the other MMOs I played; the NPCs were not the main course, they were merely a pretext to player interaction. The DEDs of old are, in every way possible, a great model of how EvE PvE should work; scarcity and competition should bottleneck some classes of PvE to spur content and shape certain economies.

Let’s talk about scarcity. If you are in sov, there’s no reason to defend your anomaly, as there are an unlimited supply, and you can just dock up until the danger goes away. If you are doing FW, likewise, as a farmer, you can just find another system, and there will be many more plexes than there needs to be. DEDs used to be different – there was such a limited supply that they became worth fighting over, and the loot valuable. Now, the idea is laughable – loot is so devalued that even a max payout drop isn’t worth a ship loss. EvE at it’s core is about getting people to interact, and the former value of these sites promoted that, as attackers and defenders both had something worth interacting over – big money.

Now let’s talk about competition. After the great escalation changes accompanying AegisSov, Sov null was producing so many DEDs, and producing them so deep in guarded space, that the prices of all loot tanked. One could say the opportunity cost of running them in NPC null became nonviable given how easily and safely one could factory farm them deep in sov. Soon there was no reason to run them out of sov, and both content seeds and income was plucked from NPC null. I mean you could ostensibly say that there are moons in NPC null, yes, of course there are, but these generally end up in control of larger, stronger, neighboring sov style alliances, wrestled from the smaller, scrappier NPC null residents. Smaller entities would like more active income they can actually struggle for, like DEDs, rather than the game of sov come to NPC null in the form of Pos-timer content.

The current sov model does well to support larger entities – they can feed their members by developing the systems and moons just fine. High-sec has incursions and industry which are both madly lucrative given the relative lack of risk. Low-sec has faction warfare and L5 missions. NPC null has...well nothing that can be used to empower smaller groups. To let small groups build up, to give entities other than the few large, monolithic entities a foot hold in a very dog-eat-dog world, they need bottom up, accessible income. What do I mean by that? The income source needs to be something that does not require large build up or investment from preexisting entities, infrastructures, or NPC standings – something that cannot be essentially used as ransom or payment by the people that already ‘have’. It needs to be accessible, i.e anyone can do it. The perfect fit for both of these, while encouraging smaller group content, is DEDs. The DEDs 7-10 should be moved to NPC nullsec exclusively. If larger entities wanted to control these resources, it would take considerable, active effort, rather than the sterile, timer based flexing of large coalition musculature. The intended result is to give some of the keys of content and group building back to smaller entities, and give them unique resources which are impractical for larger entities to try and control, given their scale and focus. If escalations are to remain, they should only escalate into NPC space, and the escalation should become scannable after a set time.

Likewise, this would reign in some of the absurdity with the current pirate battleship supply issues. They would slowly return to being rare, to being special. It would shift a little bit of the income to other stewards of content, to the small entities. Some people do not find their EvE-self in a massive coalition; who they are and what they do in New Eden is requires them to live a dangerous life on the edge with a few of their friends. There has been a lot of development on content ratchets for larger, big ticket entities; it’s about time they give a resource that can be contested on a smaller scale, while simultaneously fixing part of a large scale over-supply problem. Every space, every playstyle, should have the appropriate tools and income opportunity to support itself – NPC null is a place so many people want to be able to live, yet has less actual support than lowsec, in my appraisal.

TL:DR Move DED 7 through 10 to NPC nullsec exclusive sites, simultaneously address the supply issues with pirate battleship hulls while adding a niche economy for an underdeveloped part of space.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Lister Stark
Vic Johnson's bait shop
Rote Works
#27 - 2017-03-01 22:34:31 UTC
I remember the days when a small group could live in NPC null and keep their people in ships just from the DED sites around them. I t would be great if it was an option again.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2017-03-02 09:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Vic Jefferson wrote:
B)Mechanics that deplete the available player content should be looked at first and foremost.

Standings are probably the most obvious thing in need of revision here – whether it is missions or faction warfare, or who knows what, the horrible penalties one incurs via these activities make no sense and have no place in the game currently, but are absolutely characteristic of many of the artificial entry barriers the game was previously fraught with. Either that, or add a tag system similar to the security status system for repairing faction standings quickly – take out the vintage MUD era NPC standings grind and let players be the freelancers they wish. Too many players end up victimized by standings which have ceased to offer many perks, take away the penalties, or offer ways around them.


Hello,

First of all I agree there's a few game mechanics that definitely need to be revised including the one pertaining to Faction standings.

However I disagree with your viewpoint. This game was based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' which makes this game great. Currently the only way to repair negative Faction standings is to grind missions. It takes time for players to ruin Faction standings and it should take some time to repair those standings. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

In my opinion CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. I'd like to see more content pertaining to Faction standings be added to the game but at this time my inquiry is based more on the effects of negative Faction standings.

I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase back in 2010. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan'. Most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. A lot of players in-game don't even read the forums so they don't know that guide is available. In fact repairing negative Faction standings is a big task for experienced players. New players who haven't even learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings right from the start without even knowing it, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

Anyway these are some options I think would help players in-game.

Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Faction standings notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning to inform players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Implement Tags for Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Once again good luck with the upcoming election.


DMC
Cyclo Hexanol
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#29 - 2017-03-04 04:34:09 UTC
Looks like you just support healthy gameplay and a better game for everyone. Got my vote.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

King of Stating the Obvious 2015

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Elected by: Random forum alt

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Cochise Chiricahua
The Inglourious Bastards
#30 - 2017-03-08 21:39:05 UTC
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.
Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#31 - 2017-03-08 23:31:19 UTC
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.



Hello Chochise,

So here's the deal. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the current set of mechanics related to ganks in HiSec. I will cover this in a few different ways.

I lose a lot of ships. I have lost so much ISK and ships in ways that are retrospectively silly beyond question and show nothing but hilariously poor judgement and lack of situational awareness. However, on any of my characters, I have never lost a freighter or jump freighter. There's a reason for this - taking even the most basic precautions makes them extremely hard to gank. Some people lose them yes, but considering how successful Red Frog/Black Frog are when they are dedicated professionals to this aspect of the game, and how rarely they lose one, it speaks volumes about both rewarding specialization and how safe you really can be in those ships. I spend a surprising amount of time in freighters. The hull HP buff was incredible too, they have already given freighters a huge buff.

When they re-balanced t1 Industrials, they went nuts. You are basically un-gankable in HiSec as it is if you...
Don't auto-pilot.
Use the ample fitting they give you to have some tank. Some can take 2 or more tornado vollies, easily!
Use Instant-Undocks and Instant-Dock Bookmarks
Use a webbing alt.
Use a Scout.

Most of the complaints about hisec are born out of unfamiliarity with mechanics and expectation of safety. You generally can only be ganked if you let yourself be ganked. You should try it from the other-side (perhaps on an alt Bear), it will really give you a sense of not making yourself a target. If you want to beat the gankers, don't get caught, and teach your fellow HiSec residents how to stay safe. There is nothing more frustrating, in Hi, low, or null, than trying to hunt smart targets!

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Circumstantial Evidence
#32 - 2017-03-09 00:35:18 UTC
Interesting ideas for adding something unique about NPC null. Lowsec got a nice buff with the introduction of clone soldiers "tags for sec," and the mordus legion commanders. NPC null needs some unique flavor.
Cade Windstalker
#33 - 2017-03-09 22:02:46 UTC
Hi Vic,

I've got an interesting question for you and I'm curious how you respond.

We both know each other from around the forums and while we've certainly disagreed on various points I have a lot of respect for you as someone who knows how to present a decent argument and knows the game quite well and I could see you getting a spot on my ballot.

So, that said, what would you do if you got onto the CSM and came to them with a concern or a change you'd like to see (any concern but I don't think you'll be surprised if I use Incursions as my example here) and they go "we understand your concern, but we think that's actually fine and healthy and here's the data we have to back that up." For Incursions that might be the actual rate of ship loss compared to other gameplay, the actual rate of income, anything like that. What would your response be to being presented with contradictory evidence to your own gameplay experiences?

Corollary: What would your response be to being presented with a similar counter by CCP but without the hard evidence, just a vague assertion that they're monitoring things and don't have a cause for concern at this time?

Regards,

-Cade
Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#34 - 2017-03-09 23:20:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hi Vic,

I've got an interesting question for you and I'm curious how you respond.

We both know each other from around the forums and while we've certainly disagreed on various points I have a lot of respect for you as someone who knows how to present a decent argument and knows the game quite well and I could see you getting a spot on my ballot.

So, that said, what would you do if you got onto the CSM and came to them with a concern or a change you'd like to see (any concern but I don't think you'll be surprised if I use Incursions as my example here) and they go "we understand your concern, but we think that's actually fine and healthy and here's the data we have to back that up." For Incursions that might be the actual rate of ship loss compared to other gameplay, the actual rate of income, anything like that. What would your response be to being presented with contradictory evidence to your own gameplay experiences?

Corollary: What would your response be to being presented with a similar counter by CCP but without the hard evidence, just a vague assertion that they're monitoring things and don't have a cause for concern at this time?

Regards,

-Cade



Hi Cade.

So it's great you mention data. I love data! Data has to be one of my favorite things! One thing I have learned over the course of my professional career is that it opposing the data itself is often futile and just results in butting heads, but how it is analyzed or interpreted makes all the difference, and discussing that can lead to rather productive dialogue. Data collected in-silico is generally very reliable and repeatable, so there's basically no contesting it - I think CCP is going to the sole source of reliable data pertaining to New Eden. The monthly economic reports are a good presentation of data, but they do not actually include much analysis on the data. Basically, if they showed me data on something and I disagreed with their interpretation or analysis, I would ask for the data itself and, if possible, conduct and independent analysis of it, but as stated the data itself is not contestable. Yes we can all draw our own conclusions and make our own stories based on charts they release, but how statistically valid are they? How are they modeling things? I am also very used to my hypotheses being proven very wrong by evidence, where it is all too easy to fall into a mode of thinking when there is no actual data to guide the construction of models. Things invariably look different from outside the system looking in, as opposed to the other way around.

Not everything is a question of data or math. Many of the bigger problems in the game are philosophical in nature and excessive data and math may only serves as distracting anecdotes. However, I believe my professional training is an asset, I am quite able to take even deep criticism of ideas.

On the corollary, they are in charge. I would only exist as a sounding board. It is my duty to be a voice for players, it's up to CCP to hear/listen.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

JoJo McKee
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#35 - 2017-03-10 08:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: JoJo McKee
Hi Vic

you wrote

Vic Jefferson wrote:


So here's the deal. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the current set of mechanics related to ganks in HiSec.



and in GD https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6866172#post6866172

I read

Vic Jefferson wrote:


...If anything they need to give the gankers some buffs due to the side-effect of the base hull resist changes. You won't find any argument in me about legitimate ganking in highsec - it needs buffs! 100% Pro-ganking with a track record to prove it!




So I'm just wondering what buffs to ganking you would like to see which won't affect the current set of mechanics related to ganks in HiSec -- seeing as how there is nothing currently wrong with them in your view.

Good luck with your candidature.
Vic Jefferson
Motiveless Malignity
#36 - 2017-03-10 17:59:44 UTC
Hi JoJo,

I don't think those are as contradictory as they seem. The mechanics are sound, they haven't really touched those in quite some time. The actual numbers on the ships involved have changed. I do think the T1 industrials were over-buffed to the point where fitting is no longer a compromise as it should be - you can get a tank and haul quite a lot. I think if people had to learn to fit ships properly at the sub-cap level, then they would make better choices with freighters, and lots of the noise about how unfair ganks are would not exist - they would potentially be more likely to have learned to use the existing tools and mechanics to keep themselves safe long before they become a freighter-owner. Smoother inclines allow for easier learning.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Carthraxis
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2017-03-16 23:24:01 UTC
+1 good platform and knows his stuff
SCV'Argos
TheMurk
#38 - 2017-03-17 01:10:50 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
D)Risk and reward should be at the heart of every mechanic.

Wardecs are probably one of the mechanics with the highest potential for generating engaging content, but largely fail to do so because of the asymmetry of it all. I.E. they could actually plant lots of great content seeds to get things rolling, but do not currently. Most of the larger wardec alliances can just blanket war-dec the entire game as there are no actual consequences to this other than token ISK costs, and no real risk to them due to high sec mechanics. If the wardeccers had to actually play a game of how many alliances and entities they can safely dec at once, say, by actually having ante on the table, things would be vastly more engaging. Right now there's nothing for defenders to actually attack to end the war, and no actual liabilities for the attacker, so the best strategy is just to dec everyone and take the easy pickings. However, numerous people have proposed structures or citadel modules/rigs that would be required to declare and wage war in high-sec – these would be a great addition to the game because they would turn wardecs into an actual game; how many and which things can I safely dec? The rest of the game has a very interesting approach to content. Someone gets attacked, somewhere, for some reason. Suddenly they talk to their friends for help defending….and suddenly the attackers also find allies, thus the escalation begins. Before you know it, EvE’s twisted and Byzantine alliances all work out who’s side they are going to fight for over a given, initially small, conflict. This right here is the essence of EvE – there are social consequences beyond one episodic instance, the game fosters these like no other, and conflict is rich with many different concurrent dimensions.People could actually get involved in the war once the attacker actually has some skin in the game. Now players could actually fight back – fantastic, an actual risk and reward paradigm for wardeccers!

I think there is another very important mechanic which makes wardecs so lame - it's the so-called 'undock-fapping' gameplay. It's pretty common for wardeccers to just sit at trade hub stations and wait for easy prey. It's more like fishing than pvp.
The undock mechanics of citadels should extend to stations for everybody who has security status above criminal level. This would achieve 2 things: 1) less deaths on undock due to lags; 2) no station-camping by wardeccers. Gate-camping is not the best gameplay either, but it is significantly less safe for the participants than station-camping.

To make risk/reward scheme work in wardecs we also need a proper risk source. We should rather have mercenary mechanics (which was a great idea, just not working) useful. This can be achieved by these steps:
1) eliminating undock-camping to move wardeccers further from safety;
2) introducing highsec covertcynos (see this topic: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129) to make highsec pvp more dynamic: best pvp events in Eve start like sparks and based on surprise;
3) making pilot locations of both sides of a conflict always availabe to each other, real-time or nearly real-time -- so that the two sides could always meet (especially wardeccers vs mercenaries), and be on equal terms.
With these 3 steps combined wardecs would become less biased, making attackers more vulnerable and mercenaries able to actually do something meaningful.
Previous page12