These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hey Kelduum, What's Your View on Highsec Conflict?

Author
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-02-02 06:26:12 UTC
What are your views on CONCORD? Fine they way they are? They need to be beefed up? They need to be nerfed?

What about war declarations? You obviously have ideas on this topic (having spent a lot of time bemoaning them with CCP.) What would you like to see CCP do with war declarations?
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#2 - 2012-02-02 09:38:06 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What are your views on CONCORD? Fine they way they are? They need to be beefed up? They need to be nerfed?

What about war declarations? You obviously have ideas on this topic (having spent a lot of time bemoaning them with CCP.) What would you like to see CCP do with war declarations?


Yea this...

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-02-02 11:18:47 UTC
Indeed.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Ni.

Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#4 - 2012-02-02 12:05:53 UTC
Fair enough, I've fired up my Formspring account again, so feel free to ask any questions there.

Short answers, as I don't have much time right now:
- CONCORD seems to be fine at the moment. I'm not aware of them needing any buffs/nerfs.
- Wardec needs a much longer post, but I feel they need a bit of a 'rework' from CCP, adding in some (although not neccecarily financial) control of the duration of the conflict by the defender, as well as mechanics which would allow mercenaries (on both sides) to get involved quickly and easily, and a fix for the current loopholes.


Also, Poetic, where is the link to the blog post? ;)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-02-02 14:38:43 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Wardec needs a much longer post, but I feel they need a bit of a 'rework' from CCP, adding in some (although not neccecarily financial) control of the duration of the conflict by the defender, as well as mechanics which would allow mercenaries (on both sides) to get involved quickly and easily, and a fix for the current loopholes.

Promising. Needs some specifics, though. Still vague. Not quite sure how bullish or bearish you are on the conflict issue. (I realize you might want to keep that vague, for elective purposes, but you really do need to pick a side.)

Costs to start?

Methods to end a wardec if you're the defender? If not financial, how? (I seem to recall an past suggestion of yours being the use of structures, blow-up some sort of CONCORD placed structure if aggressor's cannot defend, then war ends. A capture the flag sort of idea. Blow-up the flag.)

What exactly are the current loopholes? We may see them differently. How would you fix them? Or would you outright remove them?

Would decshields still be possible with the new wardec system?

Would you push for a special designation (e.g. training corporation) for EVE University, to exempt them from a war declaration system?

Onto to other conflict.

Since you apparently represent EVERYONE, do you support highsec ganking? You more barriers be placed to prevent ganking? Or are the barriers (CONCORD, insurance removal) as they are now, adequate?
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#6 - 2012-02-02 22:04:40 UTC
First of all, I'm not a game designer (although I do have more than a fair bit of programming experience and ~30 years gaming background), and most if not all of this is speculation but would likely require lots of things to be changed/adjusted/modified to accommodate any changes.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Costs to start?

Methods to end a wardec if you're the defender? If not financial, how? (I seem to recall an past suggestion of yours being the use of structures...)

I won't go into costs as that depends on a lot of other factors and would be up to CCP to set, but at the moment the cost to wardec a corp vs an alliance is rather silly, so that could probably do with some attention, especially seeing as there are a good few alliances out there with only a handful of characters in them. However, I would make the war bills payable daily, at the same overall cost they are now.

I have a big writeup which I may post on the Features and Ideas forum at some point, but the tl;dr version would be a moderately expensive structure, which projects a 'bubble of nullsec' around it (and can't be anchored too near anything like gates/belts etc), can optionally be fuelled to increase its EHP, and must be online to keep the war running, but at less cost.

However being in nullsec anyone (for example, mercenaries or even someone who doesn't like the aggressors) could get involved and help kill/repair/defend it, increasing options for interaction between players.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What exactly are the current loopholes? We may see them differently.

How would you fix them? Or would you outright remove them?

They relate to the way the current billing system works. I won't go into more detail as the mechanisms used could possibly use misused somewhere else, but they are pretty well documented elsewhere for those willing to look.

Assuming the wardec system got some work, then the simple solution would be to change how the billing mechanics work at the moment in relation to wars, and provide a way for existing wars to be re-declared while in cooldown.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Would decshields still be possible with the new wardec system?

Would you push for a special designation (e.g. training corporation) for EVE University, to exempt them from a war declaration system?


Assuming the mechanics are pretty robust, DecShields wouldn't be possible no, but they wouldn't be as needed.

Believe it or not, if CCP offered me some kind of 'special designation' tomorrow, I would very likely say no. While recognition is nice, E-UNI is very much proud of its independence, and updated wardec mechanics (broadly) as described above would resolve the problems we have with the current setup. Similarly, if we wanted to be exempt from the wardec system, we could have closed the corp many years ago, and become something akin to Project Halibut, retaining the forums, wiki etc, but no corp as such.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Since you apparently represent EVERYONE, do you support highsec ganking? You more barriers be placed to prevent ganking? Or are the barriers (CONCORD, insurance removal) as they are now, adequate?

Yes, I have no problem with the existance of hisec ganking (both the suicide and bait/agro kinds) both as a source of income and entertainment. With the fairly recent change to remove insurance payouts for CONCORD losses, this seems to have balanced things pretty nicely.


As is, what makes EVE great is the interaction between its players, and things that promote that but don't try and force players to do things they don't want to (eg: Move all L4 missions to losec or make NPC corps wardeccable) will help grow EVE, and more people means more interactions, leading to more awesomeness.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-02-03 01:40:41 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
I have a big writeup which I may post on the Features and Ideas forum at some point.

Why don't you post it as part of your platform. Believe it or not, nothing you've said so far makes me upset. Of course, specifics are still required.

Why that document is important, I think, is because it likely does contain specifics. It's probably not something CCP would implement, but what that document does is give insight into your thinking and leanings. Which are important.

I may even support you. So far, nothing you've said with respect to conflict has been alarming. But I am really interested in that document, if only because it will give real insight into your leanings.

(As an example of middle ground ... if you think it's reasonable, under a new system, that it cost corps 1B ISK to wardec the University [as it is currently costing], then we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. On the other hand, neither do I think it's reasonable for it to cost 50M ISK to wardec an alliance. I still believe the sliding scale of costs can work, the idea I came up with last July. The equation is easy enough to fiddle with the come up with good values, either as daily or weekly fees.)

Anyhow, I have one more slam post due (because it's fun and it's a valid concern to raise) ... then on the weekend, I'll cover this response of yours more fully. I don't have much negative to say about it, other than to ask questions leading to specific answers.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
I
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Would you push for a special designation (e.g. training corporation) for EVE University, to exempt them from a war declaration system?

Believe it or not, if CCP offered me some kind of 'special designation' tomorrow, I would very likely say no.
That is very good to hear ... except for the "very likely" part. What would change a very likely no into a yes?
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#8 - 2012-02-03 10:24:04 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
I have a big writeup which I may post on the Features and Ideas forum at some point, but the tl;dr version would be a moderately expensive structure, which projects a 'bubble of nullsec' around it (and can't be anchored too near anything like gates/belts etc), can optionally be fuelled to increase its EHP, and must be online to keep the war running, but at less cost.

However being in nullsec anyone (for example, mercenaries or even someone who doesn't like the aggressors) could get involved and help kill/repair/defend it, increasing options for interaction between players.

So you want to bring structure grind and weight of numbers to empire wars, which:

  • Makes eve-uni (and incidentally any large nullsec alliance) nearly invulnerable to wardecs.
  • Does nothing to help the smaller corps full of new players.
  • Will lead to more in-fleet ganks than the lofty scam: "I'm at the mission gate, you can warp your tengu in" - suddenly, nullsec!.

If this the best the "highsec candidates" can do, highseccers would be better off taking their chances with mittens.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2012-02-06 04:44:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
If EvE Uni somehow manages to become immune from wardecs, it will instantly become the WORST possible place for a new player to learn how play EvE.

It already has a reputation for "teaching" PvP by roaming in massive blobs that in no way simulate actual combat scenarios pilots find themselves in. More like a tour bus than war preparations.

I don't know if that's still Kelduum's goal or not. Just sayin'.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary