These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Killdecs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-03-06 11:41:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/03/killdecs.html

Aiden Lynch, one of the newer CSM candidates, mentioned the idea of a killdec in his platform. He didn't really expand upon it, but it got me to thinking about it. It's an interesting idea. One worthy of some discussion, to see where it can go, whether it's a worthwhile potential feature or not.

Basically he sees it as a defense against miner bumping, especially considering most of those miner bumpers happen to be in NPC corporations. Unless you want to get CONCORDed, there's not a whole lot you can do to discourage them.

Obviously, if this can be used against miner bumpers, it can be used against miners. But that's not necessarily a bad thing if the system is designed correctly.

Since Aiden was so short on details, other than comparing it directly to wardecs (except against individuals rather than corporations or alliances), I figure I'll toss out a few of my own preliminary ideas.

1. Three hour ramp up time.

2. Six hours in length.

3. Three hour ramp down time.

4. No automatic renewals. If someone wishes to manually renew a killdec, they will have to wait for the ramp down timer to end.

5. Can only be placed on members of NPC corporations.

6. Cost: perhaps in the 5M-10M ISK range.

I decided to keep the effective PvP time of the killdec down, to limit any potential long-term harassment. The three-hour ramp up and ramp-down times are important, so that players can still get some playtime in, before the killdec goes into effect. The no auto-renewal policy is important so that players are not harassed for exceptionally long periods of time, they can still get in six-hours of playtime before manual killdec renewal.

The NPC corporation-only restriction is important. It ensures NPC corps are no longer safe havens. If a player isn't in an NPC corp, it means someone is going to have to go after the entire corporation/alliance via the usual wardec system, they can't single a specific person out.

Thoughts?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-03-06 11:45:27 UTC
Supported, something like this is needed.
darmwand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-03-06 12:08:56 UTC
Sounds like fun and may help against AFK miners. I like.

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Mr VonBraun
Collegium Ignis
#4 - 2013-03-06 12:33:36 UTC
This +1
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-03-06 12:35:12 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Stuff like this is why CCP never listens to the CSM. Fortunately for Eve players.

CCP wrote:
You dec the corp, not the player
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-03-06 12:39:56 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Stuff like this is why CCP never listens to the CSM. Fortunately for Eve players.

CCP wrote:
You dec the corp, not the player

You can't wardec NPC corps.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-03-06 12:40:15 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Basically he sees it as a defense against miner bumping


If implemented this would be used about 1% for the stated reason, and 99% for griefing NPC miners and mission runners.

...

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-03-06 13:00:04 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Basically he sees it as a defense against miner bumping
If implemented this would be used about 1% for the stated reason, and 99% for griefing NPC miners and mission runners.
NPC corporations afford too much safety.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-03-06 13:14:58 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
TheSkeptic wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Basically he sees it as a defense against miner bumping
If implemented this would be used about 1% for the stated reason, and 99% for griefing NPC miners and mission runners.
NPC corporations afford too much safety.


Because you'd rather pick a fight against someone's PVE/Indy character instead of their PVP character? GG.

...

Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-03-06 13:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Yeep
I think you'd have to have the total time be more than 24 hours otherwise you could find someone with limited but consistent hours of play and restrict your killdec to just those hours every single day.

TheSkeptic wrote:

Because you'd rather pick a fight against someone's PVE/Indy character instead of their PVP character? GG.


Why should my source of income be completely immune to the actions of my "PVP character"?
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-03-06 13:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: TheSkeptic
Yeep wrote:
I think you'd have to have the total time be more than 24 hours otherwise you could find someone with limited but consistent hours of play and restrict your killdec to just those hours every single day.

TheSkeptic wrote:

Because you'd rather pick a fight against someone's PVE/Indy character instead of their PVP character? GG.


Why should my source of income be completely immune to the actions of my "PVP character"?


I'm not saying they should. But thankyou for helping highlight that this would only be used to grief and not for the reasons outlined in the suggestion.

Additionally station traders already benefit from that immunity.

...

De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-03-06 14:21:08 UTC
Wardeccing individual players is a horrid idea because it will (not may, will) be misused to grief undesirable people from the game.

Imagine the following:

A lonely NPC hauler is noticed by some unsavory types. Baddie 1 killdecs Hauler.
Rampup timer wait, 3 hours, the the killdec starts.
3 hours into the dec, baddie 2 decs the hauler (dec the hauls? Lol)
Cooldoown from baddie 1 starts as baddie 2 gets his kill dec activated.
Cooldown from baddie 1 ends at half way mark of baddie 2
Baddie 1 redecs at halfway mark of baddie 2, and the cycle repeats - forever, as long as they're willing to keep paying for it.

A large enough group could, in theory, halt every freighter going in and out of every trade hub that wasn't on their "approved list". Toss a few billion isk a month at decs, and shut down highsec trade.


Well, on the other hand, it would make null sec industry a lot more profitable.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#13 - 2013-03-06 14:32:35 UTC
i like this idea. I think it helps move highsec towards where it should be in terms of risk vs reward.\

@ De'Veldrin I personally dont think thats an awful an idea as you make it out to be. However imposing some form of restrictions would solve the potential for serious griefing.

Possibly a limit to how many a player can have at once? Or a limit to how many per day/ time period? Although I would like to note that a simple solution would be just join a real corp. AT that point at least people have to go through war decs, but i think far too many eve players are in npc corps, provide more reasons for them to join real corps and help keep the gears turning.

Event Organizer of EVE North East
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-03-06 14:55:13 UTC
ExookiZ wrote:
i like this idea. I think it helps move highsec towards where it should be in terms of risk vs reward.\

@ De'Veldrin I personally dont think thats an awful an idea as you make it out to be. However imposing some form of restrictions would solve the potential for serious griefing.

Possibly a limit to how many a player can have at once? Or a limit to how many per day/ time period? Although I would like to note that a simple solution would be just join a real corp. AT that point at least people have to go through war decs, but i think far too many eve players are in npc corps, provide more reasons for them to join real corps and help keep the gears turning.


If you want people in player corps, and out of the NPC corps, you need to offer them more carrot and less stick, Too much stick, and they'll just quit the game. Or they'll form 1 man corps they can shed as easily as you can change your underwear every time they get decced. Then the HS wardec corps will be screaming that they need to stop 1 man corps, or they need to lock players in place for the duration of the wardec.

Eventually, you apply enough stick to the problem, that the casual players who don't want to PvP will just quit because playing their way is now too difficult to continue. And before you even say it, yes, yes, this is a PvP game, non-consensual blah blah blah. You want to blow someone up in a non-consenual manner? Gank them, or pay someone else to do so. That option still exists (at least until CCP removes it - mark my words, that black day is coming).

This isn't the Eve of 2003, or even 2008 when I started playing. There are, I would wager, more people playing Eve now who DO NOT want to PvP than there are who do. And like any profit making entity, you are going to have a very hard time convincing CCP to shoot itself in the foot and kill the golden goose of subsciptions and PLEX.

I have said it before, you can force PVP onto people, but you cannot force them to accept it and actively participate if they do not want to. They will not man up, they will not suddenly see the light, they will not fight you, or pay someone to fight on your behalf. They have no reasons to.

And that, my friends, is the real problem that needs fixing. If you give people a reason to fight, they will fight, or they will pay someone else to fight for them. As it stands now, those reasons do not exist for much of the player base. But trying to lock people into PvP (which is all this proposal really is) is doomed to failure, because a game that's not fun is not one people will play (especially pay to play).

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-03-06 16:19:10 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:

If you want people in player corps, and out of the NPC corps, you need to offer them more carrot and less stick, Too much stick, and they'll just quit the game. Or they'll form 1 man corps they can shed as easily as you can change your underwear every time they get decced. Then the HS wardec corps will be screaming that they need to stop 1 man corps, or they need to lock players in place for the duration of the wardec.


The only way I can think of to make people stick in their corps through wardecs is to reward time spent in a corp somehow (and also reward corps that stay active for longer). One way to do this would be having corporation skills where your corp gains skillpoints over time based on how many members it has which grant active or passive boosts to all the members. Your access to the benefits would be limited based on how long you'd been with the corp.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#16 - 2013-03-06 16:34:02 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Wardeccing individual players is a horrid idea because it will (not may, will) be misused to grief undesirable people from the game.

Imagine the following:

A lonely NPC hauler is noticed by some unsavory types. Baddie 1 killdecs Hauler.
Rampup timer wait, 3 hours, the the killdec starts.
3 hours into the dec, baddie 2 decs the hauler (dec the hauls? Lol)
Cooldoown from baddie 1 starts as baddie 2 gets his kill dec activated.
Cooldown from baddie 1 ends at half way mark of baddie 2
Baddie 1 redecs at halfway mark of baddie 2, and the cycle repeats - forever, as long as they're willing to keep paying for it.

A large enough group could, in theory, halt every freighter going in and out of every trade hub that wasn't on their "approved list". Toss a few billion isk a month at decs, and shut down highsec trade.


Well, on the other hand, it would make null sec industry a lot more profitable.




basically breaking highsec. thanks for pointing that out ;p

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2013-03-06 16:37:17 UTC
Yeep wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:

If you want people in player corps, and out of the NPC corps, you need to offer them more carrot and less stick, Too much stick, and they'll just quit the game. Or they'll form 1 man corps they can shed as easily as you can change your underwear every time they get decced. Then the HS wardec corps will be screaming that they need to stop 1 man corps, or they need to lock players in place for the duration of the wardec.


The only way I can think of to make people stick in their corps through wardecs is to reward time spent in a corp somehow (and also reward corps that stay active for longer). One way to do this would be having corporation skills where your corp gains skillpoints over time based on how many members it has which grant active or passive boosts to all the members. Your access to the benefits would be limited based on how long you'd been with the corp.


I would say dump the idea of an individual reward in favor of the idea of a corp reward. If your corp stays together, it earns Corp Skill Points - and the more active members you keep (logged in at least once a week, maybe? Defining active might be tricky). Your corp can then put those "skill points" into training corp bonus skills (Mining Yield bonus for example). Now we have corps that are becoming more specialized, and if they disband, all those bonuses are lost forever. If they reform a new corp, those bonuses start over from 0 again and they have to rebuild them. You could also set a minimum threshold of members before the bonuses start building to discourage a proliferation of 1 man corps - maybe 25 members before the skill points start building up.

That encourages people to band together, stick together, and work to protect what they've earned. Whether they start fighting themselves, or hire a specialized PVP corp to do it, it means more gudfites and less disband and run away. Hopefully, anyway.

Thoughts?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2013-03-06 16:37:58 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Wardeccing individual players is a horrid idea because it will (not may, will) be misused to grief undesirable people from the game.

Imagine the following:

A lonely NPC hauler is noticed by some unsavory types. Baddie 1 killdecs Hauler.
Rampup timer wait, 3 hours, the the killdec starts.
3 hours into the dec, baddie 2 decs the hauler (dec the hauls? Lol)
Cooldoown from baddie 1 starts as baddie 2 gets his kill dec activated.
Cooldown from baddie 1 ends at half way mark of baddie 2
Baddie 1 redecs at halfway mark of baddie 2, and the cycle repeats - forever, as long as they're willing to keep paying for it.

A large enough group could, in theory, halt every freighter going in and out of every trade hub that wasn't on their "approved list". Toss a few billion isk a month at decs, and shut down highsec trade.


Well, on the other hand, it would make null sec industry a lot more profitable.




basically breaking highsec. thanks for pointing that out ;p


I am glad the point I was trying to make was clear. Sometimes I tend to ramble and it gets lost.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-03-06 17:14:02 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:

That encourages people to band together, stick together, and work to protect what they've earned. Whether they start fighting themselves, or hire a specialized PVP corp to do it, it means more gudfites and less disband and run away. Hopefully, anyway.


But it doesn't stop everyone leaving the corp with a holding character every time they get wardecced then re-joining as soon as the dec drops. If we assume corp skills follow the pilot skill model with levels 1-5 and diminishing returns. If your corp has a skill trained to 5 you might get the benefit of level 1 after a day in corp, level 2 after a week, level 3 after a month etc... That way you have to decide how much those high level benefits mean to you before you corp-hop to avoid a wardec. Right now theres almost no downside.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2013-03-06 17:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Yeep wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:

That encourages people to band together, stick together, and work to protect what they've earned. Whether they start fighting themselves, or hire a specialized PVP corp to do it, it means more gudfites and less disband and run away. Hopefully, anyway.


But it doesn't stop everyone leaving the corp with a holding character every time they get wardecced then re-joining as soon as the dec drops. If we assume corp skills follow the pilot skill model with levels 1-5 and diminishing returns. If your corp has a skill trained to 5 you might get the benefit of level 1 after a day in corp, level 2 after a week, level 3 after a month etc... That way you have to decide how much those high level benefits mean to you before you corp-hop to avoid a wardec. Right now theres almost no downside.


I could support that. Leave a corp and you personally lose the benefits of that corp's existence - join a new one and you slowly ramp up to match that corp's current level. It may not stop war-dec corp hopping, but it would make it more painful - especially for the min-max crowd.

Another idea is that like sov levels (I know, I know - groan) those skill points deteriorate with inactivity. So if the corp drops to a holding character who only rarely logs in, those skill points start to fall away, reducing the bonus - so even if they corp hop, they come back to a lesser corp than they left behind. It gives the corp an incentive to stay together and stay active besides just bragging rights for being an old corp. It also gives them something that might actually be worth fighting over - if they don't want to lose their bonuses, they have to stay a corp and stay active.

Implementation might be a PITA, but that's why CCP gets paid, right?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
12Next page