EVE General Discussion

All this bull$hit is going to backfire.

They stated at Fanfest:

- Objective to make EvE the biggest MMO universe by the next year

- Streamlining the game (also seen in the last month with the items name changes and blogs about changing ships skills etc).

- Redoing POSes and greatly spreading their use so "everybody" will want one.


They will NOT achieve this by making more bizantine (and thus exploitable) rules, like "you can wardec this for Y paying Z but if K <> gamma then alpha = beta^2".

They got it for the new aggression mechanics why they can't get it for wardecs?


Why don't they GET IT that people won't get their personal-remade POS if they have to tear it down once a week? It's just basic common sense. No, a guy with 1 hour to play a day won't subject himself to the burden of finding a reliable and good merc corp (expensive and when I ask them: "no way, we don't do these menial boring things like protecting a POS"). They will just tear the POS down, do some pathetic PvE (EVE's PvE is possibly the worst in the industry), get bored and leave.

Why don't they GET IT that people in 2012 just won't bend down and suck prepotent bully d!cks "I pee in your face because that makes feel me good!" and will just choose another game?
Don't get me wrong, it's OK to get a wardec by a competitor and whatever but allowing the above mentality people in a social paid experience? Don't make me laugh. A regular person will just think that CCP are nonsensical at allowing that behavior and will go play a game where punks "I do this (list here any obnoxious garbage not related with competitive game play) because I can" get banned.


The whole "corporation" concept is a farce and easily proven by the fact that people HAVE to form one in a million 1 man new corps just to put up a small POS (or any tangible industry feature) somewhere.

Is that a corp? No, it's a cumbersome outdated game mechanic that forces everybody to form a corp for anything.

If they want the "POS for everyone" concept to have any degree of success they have to implement a sub-corporation entity where people can do their crap without getting constantly focused by 100 times as stronger entities who won before even beginning "a match".

"LOL noob HTFUADAPT". Sure, then why did they create FW? To not force people in the tiresome 0.0 politics and general bull$ht.
Why did they create WHs and why are they so damn successful? Again, to not force people in tiresome 0.0 blobfare and politics.

So, why typical low SP fresh people have to subject themselves to tiresome grief-decs, rackets, alt-wardec-while-mains-get-hired-to-protect, RR docking games? What's competitive about it? What's challenging about this? What's intellectually interesting about this?

I really liked the part where they said they wanted wars to be more hardcore and after that everything just seemed right. Many of us were afraid they would cave in to the hisec bears and some even interpreted the crimewatch changes as a sign of that. But I think we can relax now. CCP have good intentions and they are sticking with their vision. EVE is real.

EVE has grown every year since launch, yes even the year of the summer rage 2011, by making a game that has consequences and meaning. Many leave in frustration but those who stay become loyal customers that stay in the game for years to come. That is the secret behind CCPs success. Caving in to the demands of hisec bears has a great chance of backfiring. Thankfully they seem to realize that and has chosen their path.

U mad?

In before 2k members mining corps costing 1bisk a week to dec!

I also agree that a complete stop to join/leaving while in war is too much, just as 7 days is too much (as suggested by Xorv), but a 3 day wait might be acceptable. I think 1 or 2 days is probably not enough, and all this also doesn't solve the problem of aggressors just hopping into another corp to wardec the same target over and over... I'm not even sure if there is a solution to that though...

I'm firmly against not counting currently unsubbed accounts though, or actually only counting accounts (not characters). This gives too much (of what is essentially out-of-game) information about the corp you're about to wardec. I can just open the wardec-window on Corp X and can clearly see in the price how many accounts or unsubbed chars are in that corp. This information isn't even available to the corp themselves (the director would surely LOVE to kick unsubbed accounts). It's even worse with accounts (vs. characters), as that information should NEVER be available! EVER!

I'm on board with trials not counting though, that is a no-brainer.

some cool stuff, some not so cool

i miss the option of "escalating" a war

a defender calling more than one ally should allow the agressor to also call one (allowing the defender to always have one more ally than the agressor)

also something like "hand over poco or pos X" to end war" would be really really cool

It's saying: Get the fck out of hisec.

At the roundtable, I brought up the idea of (essentially) maintaining the same pricing structure but having it rely on relative numbers or ratios instead of absolute numbers, and it was met with some general approval among the others. Basically, have whatever cost you like for each wartarget, but make it count per # characters difference between aggressor and defender.

This would have a couple of interesting consequences.

First, it would get rid of the “oh, let's just go after the small guy because they (still) cost fsck-all to dec”. It would instead ever so slightly encourage “oh, let's go after the same-sized guys”.

Secondly, to actually achieve that “same-sized” status, I can easily see a cottage industry of padding corps and alliances on both sides of the table. With the current system, alt-padding becomes the new dec shield. With a ∆-system, both sides would have some interesting choices which open up for some new business for the entrepid entrepreneurs. A corp who thinks that it might be attacked a lot could sign up for membership in a padding-alliance to drive the cost up for those annoying tiny-number gank squads. This comes with the risk of some other gank squad coming along and picking a fight, but there's more of them than they're quite likely more dangerous than the tiny squad you first wanted to dissuade.

On the other side of the fence, the gank squad could essentially sign up for a similar service that some alliance provides, simply to get their numbers up to where they can now go after a very large group of juicy targets without paying bajillions for it. Sure, the padding alliance would now be embroiled in a war it has no intent in joining and/or fighting, just because those belligerent newcomers want to mass-pop haulers, but on the other hand, that alliance might spend all their time in w-space, so this just becomes a new way of passively making business on the side.


The whole idea the devs presented was that you paid for gaining access to targets. More targets = easier to find = moar ISKies!! Few targets = harder to find = less ISK… the problem is, of course, that that's just nonsense. It's not difficult in the slightest to find a small group, and that this pricing structure just means large alliances get an extra layer of security for free that their sheer numbers alone should provide. Making it a relative-size or ratio scheme, it would rather (admittedly only ever so slightly, and with the aforementioned caveats) incentivise something that could — at a distance — be considered approaching a “fair” fight. The caveats also open up for some fun player-run cottage industries, and that's always a bonus in my view.

The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule — if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.

If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.

If you don't want wardecs, then you will get none of those things and you have perfectly operational NPC corps and NPC facilities to take your mind off of things.

Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what? Even more business opportunities: hire a “moon valet” corp that plunks down a dummy POS at “your” moon while you protect your assets from the wardec — when the dust settles, they tear it down and you put yours back up at the same spot as before. You could probably also find various mission-crazy people who are willing to act as standings-padding, bumping your standings up for a few ISK so you don't have to kick and re-invite all the regulars every time you have to save that POS.

They don't. They want the “POS for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardec” to have a degree of success.

Agree on all counts!

Agree 100% with Tippia.

And lol at Vahrokha for thinking everyone should be able to operate a POS with zero risk. If you cant defend corp assets you should lose them.

That's exactly my opinion. Member count will be gamed just as war dec count is already (a.k.a. "dec shielding"). An inverse member count scale is interesting, but can also be gamed. For example, 100-member corp breaks into five 20-member corps and opens a chat channel ... now you need five decs that are five times as costly to attack them all. Tying war cost to corp income potential imposes a risk/reward tradeoff that is much harder to game.

Also, I disagree with the premise that a war dec from a small aggressor is less damaging than a large aggressor. When a 2-man PvP corp decs a 100-man indy corp, all 100 defenders have to adjust their game play but the aggressor does not. It's sort of the high sec equivalent of the afk cloaker. At least when a larger corp decs you, there's an enemy online and possibly in space for you to go fight with. I'm not saying that the 2-man dec vs. 100 should be forbidden, but it shouldn't be cheap either.