These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Decreasing CCP Server Load Through HS PVP Action Binding

Author
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#1 - 2012-03-17 18:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
There have been countless complaints about the current Corp/Alliance War mechanics.

From what I gather, there are two camps in this fight:

-:Those who wish to wardec as they please and prevent evasion from war dec.

-:Those that aren't as interested in PVP and wish to be able to protect themselves in High Sec.


I think I have a solution that would, to a reasonable degree, make both parties happy. I will demonstate this solution in scenarios.

[ Scenario 1 ]
Corp A Wardecs Corp B. Corp B does not want to participate in PvP action and does not participate in PVP action with Corp A. Corp B then utilizes a dec shield. All flows as it would now.

[ Scenario 2 ]
Corp A Wardecs Corp B. Corp B attacks Corp A, or defends themselves against an attack by Corp A and scores a kill. Corp B starts getting killed by Corp A more frequently than they like. Corp B decides to dec shield, but their application is denied as their corp has engaged in PVP action and successfully killed a rival pilot's ship.

[ Scenario 3 ]
Corp A Wardecs Corp B. Corp B has a member that is attacked by members of Corp A. Corp A decides to accept in-space applications from their corp hop cohorts, to increase their numbers so as to ensure victory. Corp B loses a ship and Corp A participants receive a kill. Corp A corp hoppers choose to leave Corp A, but their applications to any other corps are denied, as they have engaged in PVP action and successfully killed a rival pilot's ship. The pilot's are now locked to Corp B for the duration of the wardec.


Functionally CCP would need to make a server-side verification that determines if the person who wishes to leave corporation meets the requirements to do so:

[1] Did the member make a war kill?
(a) Yes? -> Go to [2]
(b) No? -> Allow member to leave.

[2] Was the war kill within the current war?
(a) Yes? -> Decline application/quit corp action. Server response will be "You cannot leave your current corporation as you are currently joined with it in war."
(b) No? -> Allow member to leave.

I think this solution would provide a means to evade undesired PVP in high-sec, while locking members who desire PVP to specific corps and preventing corp hops. It will also prevent war members from ducking out of dec when the stakes become too high (their POS is being bashed, etc).

This solution also allows members who do not want to participate in war to change corporations individually.

Through this concept, CCP will experience reduced server load as corp hops and dec shields will be reduced to somewhat legitimate levels.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-03-17 18:51:14 UTC
EVE is about courage and intellect, not cowardice and legalism.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Anukeet
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-03-17 19:00:51 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
EVE is about courage and intellect, not cowardice and legalism.


Where were you when existing game mechanics was created?
It's not black and white as you suggest.
Valei Khurelem
#4 - 2012-03-17 19:07:00 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
EVE is about courage and intellect, not cowardice and legalism.


So I take it when I'm in a tech 1 frigate and you're in a tech 2 cruiser that's courageous and intellectual is it? No, sorry, no matter what you might say I know you're just bullshitting. Just so you know OP, that system is actually worse than the current system, you will almost certainly end up losing players if you won't even let them leave the corporation they're in to get away from war dec griefers.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#5 - 2012-03-17 19:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
masternerdguy wrote:
EVE is about courage and intellect, not cowardice and legalism.


These mechanic suggestion would reduce cowardice actions of hiding behind NPC corporations until the situation is in their favor and then joining the war corporation.

It will also reduce cowardice actions of HS Griefer corporations preying upon weak industrial comporations that operate in HS.

Not to mention the cowardly action of running to a dec shield when the going gets tough in war you participated in initially.

Also, EVE is a game comprised of many players who may not agree with you or I on what a fun game is, or what "cowardice" and "intelligence" is.

Making a fun game involves finding a middle ground that most players would be satisfied with.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#6 - 2012-03-17 19:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
Valei Khurelem wrote:

Just so you know OP, that system is actually worse than the current system, you will almost certainly end up losing players if you won't even let them leave the corporation they're in to get away from war dec griefers.


Not sure if you missed it or not, but the system only binds the player if they participated in the war kill.

Edit: Now that I read condition [1] again, I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I fixed it.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Valei Khurelem
#7 - 2012-03-17 20:50:30 UTC
Llyona wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:

Just so you know OP, that system is actually worse than the current system, you will almost certainly end up losing players if you won't even let them leave the corporation they're in to get away from war dec griefers.


Not sure if you missed it or not, but the system only binds the player if they participated in the war kill.

Edit: Now that I read condition [1] again, I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I fixed it.


lol good that you're looking at it, but still, this is a particularly bad thing for industrials corps and mission runners etc. who want to avoid NPC taxes, try to imagine what would happen first with your system before you put it forward, it's unnecessarily complicated.

One thing I can see happening is that a griefer corp with too much ISK is going to love this feature and abuse the crap out of it, it's better to give option war dec mechanics for people who actually enjoy high sec PvP, griefers will still be able to gank, just not as easily.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#8 - 2012-03-17 21:25:59 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Llyona wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:

Just so you know OP, that system is actually worse than the current system, you will almost certainly end up losing players if you won't even let them leave the corporation they're in to get away from war dec griefers.


Not sure if you missed it or not, but the system only binds the player if they participated in the war kill.

Edit: Now that I read condition [1] again, I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I fixed it.


lol good that you're looking at it, but still, this is a particularly bad thing for industrials corps and mission runners etc. who want to avoid NPC taxes, try to imagine what would happen first with your system before you put it forward, it's unnecessarily complicated.

One thing I can see happening is that a griefer corp with too much ISK is going to love this feature and abuse the crap out of it, it's better to give option war dec mechanics for people who actually enjoy high sec PvP, griefers will still be able to gank, just not as easily.


I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are mechanics that CCP has considered acceptable that can prevent a corp from dealing with unwanted HS war decs.

Essentially there are alliances that will allow a dec'd corp to join their alliance, and then kick the corp from their alliance. When the corporation is kicked from the alliance, the war dec stays with the alliance, not the corp. One such alliance is "Dec Shield".

The system I am proposing would allow this feature to still be used.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-03-17 22:33:19 UTC
Guys, I might lose a ship in Eve Online :((((((((
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#10 - 2012-03-17 22:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
EnderCapitalG wrote:
Guys, I might lose a ship in Eve Online :((((((((


I have a feeling you aren't paying attention to the subject at hand.

I'm not proposing a system that totally prevents ship destruction. In fact, I'm proposing a system that could potentially create more ship destruction in high sec than the current system. This is accomplished by binding pilots to the corp they support during war.

To me it seems like a win for everyone, except those who wish to avoid being attacked at inconvenient times during a war dec they started.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-03-17 22:50:33 UTC
What.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-03-17 22:51:31 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
What.


He thinks that we don't understand the topic because we don't want EVE on easy mode.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#13 - 2012-03-17 22:53:53 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
He thinks that we don't understand the topic because we don't want EVE on easy mode.


Because corp hopping in space and attacking small indy corps is real hard.

This system will only **** people off who want to be able to move between corps in a minutes notice. CCP has already stated in-space corp change is an exploit. This system helps CCP fix that exploit, while allowing the endorsed CCP action of dec shield to still operate.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-03-17 22:57:44 UTC
How about we wait until the Inferno expansion with the supposed changes to War Dec mechanics happening before you tell us CCP's ~vision~ for war decs.
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#15 - 2012-03-17 23:03:14 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
How about we wait until the Inferno expansion with the supposed changes to War Dec mechanics happening before you tell us CCP's ~vision~ for war decs.


When have I stated "CCP's ~vision~ for war decs."

This is Features & Ideas last I checked, which would make a great place to post an idea for war dec mechanic changes.

That is, unless you think we should all just sit around and see what CCP does?

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-03-17 23:05:42 UTC
Llyona wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
How about we wait until the Inferno expansion with the supposed changes to War Dec mechanics happening before you tell us CCP's ~vision~ for war decs.


When have I stated "CCP's ~vision~ for war decs."

This is Features & Ideas last I checked, which would make a great place to post an idea for war dec mechanic changes.

That is, unless you think we should all just sit around and see what CCP does?


It's an issue that's being worked on by CCP's teams. Usually you give ideas for things that aren't being worked on, yes?
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#17 - 2012-03-17 23:13:07 UTC
EnderCapitalG wrote:
It's an issue that's being worked on by CCP's teams. Usually you give ideas for things that aren't being worked on, yes?


That's among the stupidest things I've ever read.

"Hey Joe, I'd give you an idea on how to do that better, but you're already in the middle of doing it."

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#18 - 2012-03-17 23:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: mxzf
Llyona wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
It's an issue that's being worked on by CCP's teams. Usually you give ideas for things that aren't being worked on, yes?


That's among the stupidest things I've ever read.

"Hey Joe, I'd give you an idea on how to do that better, but you're already in the middle of doing it."


More like "I'm not sure what you're doing Joe, but I know I can do it better". (is what you're trying to do atleast).

Personally, I want them to keep the players in the loop as to what they're doing, so that we can add input if we see the need.
Llyona
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#19 - 2012-03-17 23:27:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
mxzf wrote:
Llyona wrote:
EnderCapitalG wrote:
It's an issue that's being worked on by CCP's teams. Usually you give ideas for things that aren't being worked on, yes?


That's among the stupidest things I've ever read.

"Hey Joe, I'd give you an idea on how to do that better, but you're already in the middle of doing it."


More like "I'm not sure what you're doing Joe, but I know I can do it better". (is what you're trying to do atleast).

Personally, I want them to keep the players in the loop as to what they're doing, so that we can add input if we see the need.


That's a plain old straw-man. I've not said anything that would convey that sort of attitude toward CCP's dev team.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#20 - 2012-03-17 23:38:49 UTC
Llyona wrote:
That's a plain old straw-man. I've not said anything that would convey that sort of attitude toward CCP's dev team.


No, it's a characterization, the exact same way you did it in the post I quoted.

And, as I said, what we need isn't to tell CCP what to do right now, it's CCP to tell us what they're doing so that we can approve or offer suggestions to it. Trying to throw out suggestions without having any clue what CCP is intending to do or how far they've come so far doesn't actually help at all, it just generates fruitless-discussion (or, more typically, circular arguments and flaming).
12Next page