These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GMs - "We can't figure it out on our own. You do it"

First post First post
Author
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2012-03-03 05:31:36 UTC
Butzewutze wrote:
Sasha Azala wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe.
Tell me how to suicide gank an highsec POS, please.




The target that was being talked about was a player not a structure. But of course you know that already.

Why not just war-dec the corp the structure belongs to.


i lol'd. Do you even know what this thread is about?

The problem is that some corps flood the markets with ISK so they might change the economy and affecting every players experience risk-free. They often have a huge impact on the market but they are also "safe" at the same time. Their POS's can't be killed and their barges can only be killed by suiciding yourself. There should be Risk / Reward in eve but atm this game favours reward over risk.

And btw. imho "Industrial-Only" Corps that cant defend themselfs shouldnt exist in a "PVP" game at all. Look for another game or learn to defend yourself. Dont make the game easier for this guys.





This forum has an game attached ?? Wow i have to check it out..

/// Sorry What?
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#82 - 2012-03-03 06:26:54 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Team Super Friends.
We will rock your world.


^^ Quoting for truth. They will. I know Paradox already rocked mine.


You and your guy's love triangles

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

ACESsiggy
Deaths Consortium
#83 - 2012-03-03 08:07:43 UTC
Logged in b/c someone sound WoW on this thread Big smile

“The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.”

GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#84 - 2012-03-03 10:20:03 UTC
rodyas wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Team Super Friends.
We will rock your world.


^^ Quoting for truth. They will. I know Paradox already rocked mine.


You and your guy's love triangles


Triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, howfarcanmylatinnumbersgo-agons

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master

Gordon Fell
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-03-03 10:49:42 UTC
I can see this turning out to be what is largely the removal of the wardec mechanic. The only legitimate use of the mechanic is RvB anyway. Unused towers (or rather, moons) should be up for grabs (like secure cans, after 30 days). I think it's also perfectly reasonable to assume the wardec mechanic is responsible for a relative lower retention rate under younger players.

It makes sense, and CCP can do what they like, those nullbears just shrug and continue moaning about JB's.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#86 - 2012-03-03 12:19:08 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
EVE is never safe and we stand by that. I am not a game designer, so I have no true say in this, but I can honestly say that I do not think we will ever allow people to opt out of non-consensual danger and PVP. HOWEVER, it cannot be denied that the wardec system as it currently exists is a tool that is very often used for behavior that I, personally, would call griefing. Attacking a small, easy target for minimal cost is something for a small time criminal, not a PVP stud. Which means, in my personal opinion (in other words, this is not CCP gospel, nor a game design dogma), that paying cheap to gain an easy, semi-defenseless target should be able to be countered by equally cheap measures. EVE is harsh and often unfair, but that does not mean we cannot have some semblance of balance. When there is no balance to be had, the weight should fall in favor of the people wanting a good time. Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe.


There is a simple reason why wars fail in empire --- there is no point to them other then griefing. There is no reason to engage in a war in empire -- there is nothing to gain, no territory to hold, no resources to control. Even before decshield, if a player did not want to engage in a war -- they didnt --they would dock up, play alts, and you would never see them for the duration of the war. As for their pos'es -- well those would disappear - being taken down in the 24 hours before the war begins. Ultimately it is poor game design to force players to engage in a play style that they do not want to engage in -- so for wars to be a successful part of this game ccp must incentivizes them -- ccp must make it so that there is a reason to engage in the war. Controlling resources is the way that ccp should go and in this regard the custom houses point in the right direction. The custom houses are a resource flash point between players and they should be brought into empire at least up to .7 systems as an incentive for empire players to engage in conflict.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#87 - 2012-03-03 13:31:59 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
While that is possible (in theory), I do admit that is rather impractical.
You need 1000 pilots with perfect skills (and a rather expensive ship) to alpha the weakest, smallest tower in the game (without any hardeners ofc).
70b for a 50m tower and a bigger coordination than the biggest blob in 00 ?
No thanks.

Sasha Azala wrote:
Why not just war-dec the corp the structure belongs to.
You have no clue about highsec PS warfare. Please do not post anymore.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
There is a simple reason why wars fail in empire --- there is no point to them other then griefing. There is no reason to engage in a war in empire -- there is nothing to gain, no territory to hold, no resources to control. Even before decshield, if a player did not want to engage in a war -- they didnt --they would dock up, play alts, and you would never see them for the duration of the war. As for their pos'es -- well those would disappear - being taken down in the 24 hours before the war begins. Ultimately it is poor game design to force players to engage in a play style that they do not want to engage in -- so for wars to be a successful part of this game ccp must incentivizes them -- ccp must make it so that there is a reason to engage in the war. Controlling resources is the way that ccp should go and in this regard the custom houses point in the right direction. The custom houses are a resource flash point between players and they should be brought into empire at least up to .7 systems as an incentive for empire players to engage in conflict.
+1.
NPC manufacturing slots should be a lot more expensive (to reward people using POS in highsec, which is a risk -well unless the GMs messed with it-).
Roids/Ice should become depleted a lot more (forcing the miners to fight/hire someone to kick the other miners out of "their" system).
Etc.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-03-03 14:25:52 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
but those of us that choose to pvp in highsec have our reasons. While I'm sure some *are* hiding behind Concord's skirts, the fact is that it is (or rather was) much easier to find pvp in highsec.


Yeah. Those reasons can usually be summed up as:

1. We want to gank a specific enemy because we know a) they are noobs b) they are carebears c) we have overwhelming force.
2. We want to fight people we know are not prepared for combat
3. We want to have all the niceties of high sec, namely, no one else can shoot at us and we can act like carebears when we're not at war or there are no WT in the system, and we don't want any logistics problems at all.
4. Hanging around Jita undock waiting for a null/lowsec alliance freighter pilot who didn't check his mail is the pinnacle of creativity for us.

I have no problem with any of that. My problem is people who whine about the rules while trying every single trick they can to get around those rules, when there are plenty of people itching to fight only 5 jumps away... It's this mentality of "I wanna fight I wanna fight anyone I am soo leet I wanna fight but no, not this fight, this is too much fight, I want a different fight - the fight where I'm sure to win!" - which usually ends up being the Brutix vs Mackinaw fight in a 0.6 system.

Sure, go on, make excuses to yourself but it's so obvious. All those rules and limitations stop bothering you in 0.4 and below. Only you won't do it. It's like the 20 guys that jump into our home system in nullsec acting all bad-arse in their hurricanes, cynabals and tornados, smacking up local after they kill some dumb hulk pilot who wasn't paying attention. Why do these guys always run when our 20-30 man defense fleet shows up? I thought they wanted to fight? Nah, I wanna fight but not this fight....


Listen to you...you essentially summed up about 90% of the PvP population in this game while trying to disparage Hisec dwellers alone. What you are whining about has nothing to do with War Decs, and everything to do with the state of PvP. All this smack about people being risk adverse but the only players who are risk adverse are the solo PvPers. They do something that most won't, all in the sake of having a good fight, win or lose. I'd wager the rest of the lump is too worried about a precious killboard or their shinies to engage in fights that they could potentially lose. It's kind of pathetic really, especially when they don't acknowledge this while lambasting people in Hisec for playing the game by mechanics.
"If."
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#89 - 2012-03-03 17:04:19 UTC
Gordon Fell wrote:
nused towers (or rather, moons) should be up for grabs (like secure cans, after 30 days).


Or change tower mechanics that you have to keep it fueled to stay anchored - but it only consumes 1/2/4 blocks per hour.

Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2012-03-03 17:19:15 UTC
make wardecs 200mil per alliance per week instead of 50
make corps 50mil per week

dec shields are fine and a great isk sink.

war shouldn't be about griefing it should be about fighting

the solution to the dec shield "problem" is to fix wardecs in general so it isn't a "lets make our killboard look better so we go kill highsec players"
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#91 - 2012-03-03 17:28:05 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
but those of us that choose to pvp in highsec have our reasons. While I'm sure some *are* hiding behind Concord's skirts, the fact is that it is (or rather was) much easier to find pvp in highsec.


Yeah. Those reasons can usually be summed up as:

1. We want to gank a specific enemy because we know a) they are noobs b) they are carebears c) we have overwhelming force.
2. We want to fight people we know are not prepared for combat
3. We want to have all the niceties of high sec, namely, no one else can shoot at us and we can act like carebears when we're not at war or there are no WT in the system, and we don't want any logistics problems at all.
4. Hanging around Jita undock waiting for a null/lowsec alliance freighter pilot who didn't check his mail is the pinnacle of creativity for us.

I have no problem with any of that. My problem is people who whine about the rules while trying every single trick they can to get around those rules, when there are plenty of people itching to fight only 5 jumps away... It's this mentality of "I wanna fight I wanna fight anyone I am soo leet I wanna fight but no, not this fight, this is too much fight, I want a different fight - the fight where I'm sure to win!" - which usually ends up being the Brutix vs Mackinaw fight in a 0.6 system.

Sure, go on, make excuses to yourself but it's so obvious. All those rules and limitations stop bothering you in 0.4 and below. Only you won't do it. It's like the 20 guys that jump into our home system in nullsec acting all bad-arse in their hurricanes, cynabals and tornados, smacking up local after they kill some dumb hulk pilot who wasn't paying attention. Why do these guys always run when our 20-30 man defense fleet shows up? I thought they wanted to fight? Nah, I wanna fight but not this fight....


Slighty digressing with this post, but I have to agree. Hi-sec pvpers are pathetic at the best of times; you want to pvp, then grow a pair and find a system with a security status something less then 0.5.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#92 - 2012-03-03 17:48:04 UTC
Ive heard that if you blow up the decshield generator on the fourth moon of Endor you can bypass it and blow up the enemy deathstar.

For only 250 million isk I will send you the stolen plans that will show you how to blow it all up.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Jacob cirth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2012-03-06 08:06:20 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
EVE is never safe and we stand by that. I am not a game designer, so I have no true say in this, but I can honestly say that I do not think we will ever allow people to opt out of non-consensual danger and PVP. HOWEVER, it cannot be denied that the wardec system as it currently exists is a tool that is very often used for behavior that I, personally, would call griefing. Attacking a small, easy target for minimal cost is something for a small time criminal, not a PVP stud. Which means, in my personal opinion (in other words, this is not CCP gospel, nor a game design dogma), that paying cheap to gain an easy, semi-defenseless target should be able to be countered by equally cheap measures. EVE is harsh and often unfair, but that does not mean we cannot have some semblance of balance. When there is no balance to be had, the weight should fall in favor of the people wanting a good time. Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe.


Wow, all respect I had for you as a professional just evaporated. It CAN, and MUST be denied that it is used for behavior that is called griefing. EVE is a game where the world is harsh, and the people harsher. This is the main attraction of the game and the reason I play. "Griefers" are merely playing the game as intended. The fact you as a senior GM, and thus, a senior representative of CCP in the eyes of us players, can say something like this publicly and admit that this is how you see things shows us that CCP have still not figured out their own game.

The fact of the matter is, when a player joins a player corporation, they have volunteered themselves to the possibility of PVP and wars. If they do not want it, they may leave the corporation. That was a cheap, and easy way to avoid the consequences of joining a corporation. That was balance. Now, the balance is heavily against an aggressor, regardless of the circumstances (which, by the way, are irrelevant).

As a professional, you must look at the situation and determine that a player is violating the purpose of a mechanic. In this instance, that answer is CLEARLY yes, and the person using the dec shield is in violation. The aggressors picked a valid target (any corporation or alliance. Remember, they signed up for this upon joining), paid the fees, accepted the risk of combat and opened the war. The defenders used a quirk in the mechanic to end the war prematurely, and unintentionally.

The only professional answer you can give is that the dec shield is exploiting the mechanic, yet the answer I see is essentially you picking and choosing winners with your opinion. I find it a shame that the GM group has devolved to this point, and even more so that CCP has allowed this to happen. The dec mechanics were fine, are fine, and will remain fine as-is. The game has thrived on the theme of harshness, and many, many customers were attracted to it through the tales of war, even in highsec (and in some cases, especially in highsec).
Joshua Aivoras
Tech IV Industries
#94 - 2012-03-06 11:14:38 UTC
Summer is coming.

95% of the players are loving EVE, the other 5%? On the forums.

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
#95 - 2012-03-06 11:24:55 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Team Super Friends.
We will rock your world.


You have to hold off. My world was too heavily rocked by the expertly reworked sov mechanics and the multiplayer Incarna experiences from the Crucible expansion

Oh...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2012-03-06 11:28:30 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Slighty digressing with this post, but I have to agree. Hi-sec pvpers are pathetic at the best of times; you want to pvp, then grow a pair and find a system with a security status something less then 0.5.

Why should they go to ≤0.4 when they're already in a PvP area?
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2012-03-06 13:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Tippia wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Slighty digressing with this post, but I have to agree. Hi-sec pvpers are pathetic at the best of times; you want to pvp, then grow a pair and find a system with a security status something less then 0.5.

Why should they go to ≤0.4 when they're already in a PvP area?


And here i thought there is no such thing as PvP or PvE areas, I must have missed some disclaimer. Big smile

Anyway i actually met quite a few high sec "merc" "grief" "whatever" corps members, and they are quite fun people. Most of the times they would beat the **** out of null sec players if not ridiculously over-numbered. Cool
To add not all of nullsec players, i met quite a few which are very capable. But i met thousands which are just an numbers, me included.
Valencia Mariana
Eagle and Lion Corporate Agents
#98 - 2012-03-19 09:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Valencia Mariana
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:
Slighty digressing with this post, but I have to agree. Hi-sec pvpers are pathetic at the best of times; you want to pvp, then grow a pair and find a system with a security status something less then 0.5.

Why should they go to ≤0.4 when they're already in a PvP area?


And here i thought there is no such thing as PvP or PvE areas, I must have missed some disclaimer. Big smile

Anyway i actually met quite a few high sec "merc" "grief" "whatever" corps members, and they are quite fun people. Most of the times they would beat the **** out of null sec players if not ridiculously over-numbered. Cool
To add not all of nullsec players, i met quite a few which are very capable. But i met thousands which are just an numbers, me included.


That's fine but why do they dec (more often than not) corps that are inexperianced and/or fly non-combat ships.

At the end of the day the war dec mechanic in it's current form is to open to abuse. It is highly abused by players (this much seems obvious). Coupled with other mechanics of station and gates it favours aggressors that do nothing but afk all day and then come out and gank a hauler on its way to rens. War dec'ing should be non consensual but there should be greater restrications to prevent the current abuse of blatant greifing. People are paying to play this at the end of the day, why should they pay their own money to be some bored guys food?

This sistuation could be improved by setting conditions when declaring war. Such as, removal of a tower, preventing access to systems (ie fighting over belts or something else). Thus under these conditions defending corps would be flagged for pvp should they enter a restricted constellation, did not remove their tower? This way, if you want something, you fight for it (this should always be the case). But could prevent blatant abuse of newbies for bored guys satisfaction.

If mr bored guy wants to pvp he should go to low sec. Don't chat bullshit about no small scale pvp in low sec. Its full of small scale pvp. You dont want small scall pvp, you want easy greifing. If in fact you do have something to fight over, then you should still be able to. You don't deserve what you cannot defend, this goes for newbies aswell.

Those are my opinions anywayz :)
Barakkus
#99 - 2012-03-19 11:41:42 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Had an interesting chat with a few GMs tonight regarding the decshield exploit. I'm not allowed to post GM chat logs here on the EvE forums, but the full conversation is not hard to find *wink*

Basically we went back and forth on the topic. Both GMs insist that it's not an exploit, but cannot offer a viable solution to the problem. They basically said we can't figure it out on our own so you do it.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked. The GMs broke the wardec mechanic yet refuse to call it an exploit and can't figure out a solution.

Something is terribly wrong in the GM department.


You seem to have missed the announcement 4 or 5 months ago when they said they don't care about wardec dodging mechanics anymore. It's too much time and money to deal with people whining about it, so they decided to stop trying to "regulate" it.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc

Eko'mo
Eko Research Institute
#100 - 2012-03-19 11:49:40 UTC
War dec a corp that WANTS to fight you back.

Problem solved and I'm not even a GM.

http://ekolikecrayons.wordpress.com/about/