These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Can't believe how many CSM/CCP employees want a theme park

First post
Author
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1 - 2013-01-17 08:50:16 UTC
Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Claiming that wardecs are unfair, grief-play, claiming that there's no "risk" to the aggressor (how can they bemoan the lack of risk, then suggest removing all risk from highsec as a solution?), that they should only be mutual, etc...

when has eve ever been that kind of game?
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#2 - 2013-01-17 08:58:34 UTC
Has not been but maybe heading that way, sadly for you.Bear
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2013-01-17 09:06:58 UTC
Actually what I took away from the minutes is that CCP is generally in favor of a themepark (as they are afraid of the rapid failure cascade that "I only play EVE because my friends play EVE" enables) while the CSM was pretty open in their disapproval of a more themepark-like EVE.

.

Dr Evil Cioran
#4 - 2013-01-17 09:07:58 UTC
Would this change, if it ever comes to it, mean that anchored POS'es are forever?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#5 - 2013-01-17 09:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
If hisec becomes a themepark, I may as well sign up for Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen.

The risk of non consensual PvP is what makes Eve Eve, if removed Eve becomes just another crappy MMO (with fairly crappy PvE compared to others), it might make CCP more money but they will have diluted the vision that they set out with, and that's rarely a good thing. I was under the impression that Eve was started by a group of PKers from UO, where have they gone? and who is in charge of where we go from here?

Besides if CCP do remove non consensual PvP from hisec the so called "griefing" corps will just find another EULA compliant way to force interaction with others, we've already seen this with the barge buffs and the resulting threads full of hypocritical tears about how people shouldn't be able to interfere with others playstyles, while advocating interference in others playstyles.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#6 - 2013-01-17 09:22:23 UTC
As a high-sec missionrunner carebear miner trader and occasional PVPer i am disappointing that CCP want to remove unwanted PVP against people who irritate me for any reason at all

Gentlemen, i suggest we burn high-sec to the ground, either that or encourage CCP to make changes that make it possible for high-sec players such as myself into null easier, such as removing the ability to make hueg power blocks and make null a smaller and more liquid space

(i dont want to start a trade station for everyone in null or anything)

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#7 - 2013-01-17 09:23:23 UTC
Speaking as someone who avoids PvP and is fairly carebear (but not afraid to go into WH or low/zero sec when needed)....

Making Hisec fully non-pvp will not be good for the game.

It may bring in, or retain, a few more players.... but the game as a whole will loose a lot of its street cred.
And also probably loose some of its longer standing players.

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-01-17 09:24:55 UTC
The point they were making was a vast majority of war decs is one side simply staying docked. As said in the minutes "Paying some people to stay docked." They are right that when players are hit with a war dec, they seek ways to evade it. That is either by leaving the corp, going to space where the war dec is irrelevant or simply staying docked and or logging off.

Aside from a high sec POS and POCO's (hopefully soon) there is no incentive to undock and fight if you don't think you will mop the floor with the opposition. It is the equivelant of a roaming gang in null that passes through some blocks systems. Everyone safes up and waits it out or they form ultra blob to engage the roaming gang. At which point the roaming gang runs off.

It all boils down to easy access to too much information on enemy intel and little to no incentive to undock and deal with the opposing war party. I am not saying war decs should be removed completely, but honestly the vast majority of the war decs is by some small group of players who target industrial corps to feel like they are brave. The moment the defender is able to put up a fight, the so called elite PvPers who originally war dec'd them want nothing to do with the fight and will dock up themselves.

Mechanics that end with ships choosing to dock up instead of fight a majority of the time need a rework.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#9 - 2013-01-17 09:46:12 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
The point they were making was a vast majority of war decs is one side simply staying docked. As said in the minutes "Paying some people to stay docked." They are right that when players are hit with a war dec, they seek ways to evade it. That is either by leaving the corp, going to space where the war dec is irrelevant or simply staying docked and or logging off.

Aside from a high sec POS and POCO's (hopefully soon) there is no incentive to undock and fight if you don't think you will mop the floor with the opposition. It is the equivelant of a roaming gang in null that passes through some blocks systems. Everyone safes up and waits it out or they form ultra blob to engage the roaming gang. At which point the roaming gang runs off.

It all boils down to easy access to too much information on enemy intel and little to no incentive to undock and deal with the opposing war party. I am not saying war decs should be removed completely, but honestly the vast majority of the war decs is by some small group of players who target industrial corps to feel like they are brave. The moment the defender is able to put up a fight, the so called elite PvPers who originally war dec'd them want nothing to do with the fight and will dock up themselves.

Mechanics that end with ships choosing to dock up instead of fight a majority of the time need a rework.


I don't disagree that corps just docking up and waiting it out as being a generally poor result, but a couple of people from CCP/the CSM seemed to have the wrong response to that, rather than asking "how can we encourage a fight or some form of standing up to the aggressor" they were asking "how can we make it possible to just avoid it entirely". I think the ally system was a decent attempt at answering the first question, so it's a shame to see it slipping the other way.

Additionally, while a corp docking up is generally lame, at times that can be a desired result of a war dec - whether it's because you want to try and interfere with logistics by making them too scared to do logistic runs, or because you want to interrupt their ability to PVE and earn isk, or simply because you want to punish them for something by making it difficult for them to do what they want to do.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#10 - 2013-01-17 09:47:46 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Actually what I took away from the minutes is that CCP is generally in favor of a themepark (as they are afraid of the rapid failure cascade that "I only play EVE because my friends play EVE" enables) while the CSM was pretty open in their disapproval of a more themepark-like EVE.

Some of them, like Hans and Aleks, openly disapproved of the theme park consensual PVP bs. Trebor and Meissa, though, were pretty obviously in favour of making wardecs completely mutual.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#11 - 2013-01-17 10:01:30 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I don't disagree that corps just docking up and waiting it out as being a generally poor result, but a couple of people from CCP/the CSM seemed to have the wrong response to that, rather than asking "how can we encourage a fight or some form of standing up to the aggressor" they were asking "how can we make it possible to just avoid it entirely". I think the ally system was a decent attempt at answering the first question, so it's a shame to see it slipping the other way.


The previous iterations of wardecs (including the laughably broken Dec Shield episode) illustrated one thing: you cannot force people to fight, even in an all-PvP game.

The only situations in which a hisec wardec makes sense is when there is some goal to be achieved: blow up this POS, or stop these people mining in those systems being the obvious goals. This is something that was brought up years ago, but has not been acted upon: having goal-oriented wardecs for such goals as "cause X B ISK damage" or "remove the POS at System Y Moon X".

There is the rare wardec or two where a solo wardeccer will end up blowing up some foolish miners or mission runners.

In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

I think the current wardec system, like Democracy, is not perfect, but at least it's less broken than the other options that have been tried from time to time.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#12 - 2013-01-17 10:09:19 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

Besides, I think it's safe to say that when someone declares war, they have a goal in mind, regardless of what it is. A sandbox game like EVE would leave it up to the player to determine that goal. A theme park game like WoW would provide a list of goals that someone might hope to achieve. Let's not go down that route.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2013-01-17 11:01:51 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I don't disagree that corps just docking up and waiting it out as being a generally poor result, but a couple of people from CCP/the CSM seemed to have the wrong response to that, rather than asking "how can we encourage a fight or some form of standing up to the aggressor" they were asking "how can we make it possible to just avoid it entirely". I think the ally system was a decent attempt at answering the first question, so it's a shame to see it slipping the other way.


The previous iterations of wardecs (including the laughably broken Dec Shield episode) illustrated one thing: you cannot force people to fight, even in an all-PvP game.

The only situations in which a hisec wardec makes sense is when there is some goal to be achieved: blow up this POS, or stop these people mining in those systems being the obvious goals. This is something that was brought up years ago, but has not been acted upon: having goal-oriented wardecs for such goals as "cause X B ISK damage" or "remove the POS at System Y Moon X".

There is the rare wardec or two where a solo wardeccer will end up blowing up some foolish miners or mission runners.

In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

I think the current wardec system, like Democracy, is not perfect, but at least it's less broken than the other options that have been tried from time to time.


When i declare war... I only have one goal in mind. ISK.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Tora Bushido
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#14 - 2013-01-17 11:15:51 UTC
Removing highsec pvp....lol, it will never happen. Its like removing guns from an FPS game. It would kill highsec mercenaries groups and for me reason enough to start flying drakes, cancel EVE and then play WOW. I know...that's pretty evil. Twisted

I think CCP has ****** highsec up enough already..... Ugh

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-01-17 11:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andreus Ixiris
I can't believe how fundamentally you've misread the minutes.

CSM Minutes wrote:
Two step asked the team if they felt they’d accomplished all that they had set out to accomplish in overhauling the wardec system, as it appeared to him there appeared to be just as much random wardeccing and grief wardeccing as there was before the overhaul. Solomon joked that it would be so much easier to just remove the wardec system completely, to much laughter of the CSM. Then, more seriously, Solomon explained that the designers had been back and forth discussing this question, and that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.

Trebor: There is the important word you just said – mutual conflict. Just as you can have a mutual engagement between two players, you should be able to have a mutual engagement between twogroups. But the current system, it’s a cursed mechanic, because most of the people who get involved want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?

Alek countered that this more often happened in the reverse – a smaller, say 5-man corp, will wardec a larger 50-man entity, who will just dock up and refuse to fight. Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP.

Alek: As Stoffer [Soundwave] said earlier, you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players.

Alek explained that he has no problem with such a small group paying the price to be able to fight a larger group, and if the larger group refuses to participate, that’s a decision they make for themselves. Meissa countered that Solomon was correct, most high-sec wardecs simply weren’t being fought out. Meissa likened this to simply paying other players to stay docked up.


CSM Minutes wrote:
Fozzie: A wardec where only one side wants to be in it isn't any less legitimate than a bounty that only one side wants. We're not going to go to anyone and ask them if they'd like to accept the bounty placed on them.

Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, it’s not.

SoniClover: The key thing here is that there is a legitimate reason to have a wardec system and that is to allow people to engage in a lethal fight in highsec. And that is important because it should be that the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others.


CSM Minutes wrote:
SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.


They are discussing problems intrinsic to EVE Online's mechanics and culture, which is that 90% of the time, hi-sec wardecs don't go anywhere. In fact, I'd say that for all the mockery people heap on roleplayers, roleplayers are the only people who can consistently get their hi-sec wardecs to actually work properly - because two corporations who have some strong ideological investment in the conflict are going to undock and blow each other's ships up. I wardecced the Naqam corporation back in 2008, and it went absolutely awfully for my corporation but we still undocked (and lost over a billion ISK worth of assets) because we wanted the other side not to win, because they were evil Sansha toasters and Blood Raider child-murderers.

The problem of the wardec system is one of investment, and I praise the CSM and CCP for recognising it. It is very, very rare that a hi-sec corporation is wardecced by another hi-sec corporation of roughly the same size and skill - and in many of the rare circumstances in which it is, it has been pre-arranged anyway. The most useful function of the wardec system I've seen in recent years is when low-sec pirate corporations have a specific target that they want to attack, but they forsee situations in which they may need to engage their enemy on a gate or a station and don't want to worry about having to tank sentry fire.

CCP clearly do not want to turn this game into a themepark. They just recognise that the current state of hi-sec war declaration - where the vast majority of wardecs end with one side docking up - does not make for fun or engaging gameplay.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#16 - 2013-01-17 12:37:13 UTC
What have themepark and non-consensual PvP got to do with each other? Completely different mechanisms. You can have a themepark with non-consensual PvP.
Mister S Burke
Doomheim
#17 - 2013-01-17 12:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister S Burke
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec.


Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests. It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-01-17 12:57:21 UTC
You know what, if they want to burn their game to the ground, so be it. I'm passed caring.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-01-17 13:01:30 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Claiming that wardecs are unfair, grief-play, claiming that there's no "risk" to the aggressor (how can they bemoan the lack of risk, then suggest removing all risk from highsec as a solution?), that they should only be mutual, etc...

Wardec is:
- unfair? Yes
- grif-play? Yes
- "risk-free"? Yes

I don't see any mistakes here

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#20 - 2013-01-17 13:01:53 UTC
Mister S Burke wrote:
Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests. It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.

And ten years of griefing later, EVE is still growing.

There's something wrong with your argument here. People are attracted to EVE because it is one of the very few games left that has not eschewed all meaningful player interaction in the name of stamping out griefing.
123Next pageLast page