These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed Changes Empire Space and some supporting changes

First post
Author
Lyric Masters
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2015-04-27 18:00:36 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas
Don't stress we had 4 good pages. I've got a draft of some of the ideas I've taken from this. I'll post it too the op and possibly post 4 when it's finished and see if we can get 1 last bout of discussion specifically on what I write then I may just copy paste it or ask it to be moved. Thanks tho you seem to have more patience left to explain things that have nothing to do with this [:) wrote:


CoolCool


That would be great. I have characters that operate in high, low, and null and I care about all game issues so I'll try to join any positive discussion. I'm also fresh since I've just returned since the start of the year. :D

Thanks for your efforts in trying to make New Eden more fun for everyone.
Joanna RB
JoJo Industries n Shipbreakers
#122 - 2015-04-27 19:27:29 UTC
Solonius Rex wrote:
I think the corp system itself is broken.

First off, single-man corps should not exist. Corps should have a minimum number of people requirement, say around 20 people, and that if you are inactive in a corp for more than 3-4 months, CCP automatically drops you from that corp and places you back in the NPC corp. Corps that drop below the 20 man minimum, are given 24 hour notice before they are closed, and everyone is kicked.

Secondly, leaving a corp should have penalties. NPC corps should have higher tax rates, around 30%, and if you drop corp, you cannot join another corp for 1 week. This will prevent people from lightly hopping around corps, which i think is stupid.

Thirdly, friendly fire off should have penalties. Concord should charge your corp a premium for the ability to protect your members. This should come in the form of a minimum fee, plus taxes, that is charged to the corp. Once you stop paying, friendly fire turns back on again with a 24 hour notice.

With that in mind, any corp that is in a war, or gets wardecced, should be subject to stricter penalties if people wish to drop corp during wars.

We need to make corps meaningful in order to make wardecs meaningful.


Theres a big problem with this suggestion. What exactly are you SUPPOSED to do when war decked? 90% of all war decks are between a greifer corp and a corp with absolutely zero chance. The other 10% is split between genuine wars for territory/posses, and mercs hired to deny 0.0 corps access to highsec (such as Marmites).

The latter 2 I have no problem with whatsoever, even after losing Minmatar Battleship V to a marmite gank in jita by me being stupid.

But the first one is the problem. Wardecks completely ruin the game for those on the wrong side of the griefer, with no material benefit to the greifer other than the e-peen of griefing people. Decking a corp is relativly cheap - a 1-man corp can easily shut down the entire operations of a corp just by paying the 50 mill or whatever. The threat of the gank means you cant ever undock your shiny stuff, and do people really want to just stick to flying rifters while their rattlers rot away in drydock? And if the reverse happens, and the corp gangs up and aces the griefer back to the clonebay, all that happens is he gets in his next ship.

Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.

We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.

Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender.
Lyric Masters
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2015-04-27 19:47:40 UTC
Joanna RB wrote:


Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.

We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.

Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender.


If you would seriously stay docked to a one-man wardec that wasn't active in your system, you are far too risk-adverse. Unless of course, you are AFK in which case you should garner zero sympathy.

"Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.

A pirate mentality is that the asteroid belts are his and thus the miners intruding upon them is intruding upon the pirate's territory. Pirates are known to disregard the laws of New Eden, hence, the technical sovereignty of the system is of no consequence.

You either build your own defenses or you hire someone to fight for you. Very rarely is anyone truly griefing you... they are trying to get you to pay or they are trying to get you to fight or get someone who can bring the fight to them.

Under no scenario should this type of emergent gameplay be squashed, which is exactly what makes balancing a wardec system so difficult in a game with so many choices. I can declare war on you simply because I don't like your ideas or what your corporation stands for... that can't go away.

At no time has EVE ever been marketed as a business or industry simulator. It isn't "Space Mining 2015" by CCP.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#124 - 2015-04-27 19:53:38 UTC
To touch on that I really think social corps that can't be decced need to be a thing. But they should have NPC corp restrictions/ taxes. We pay concord bribes to look the other way for a week. I don't see why concord wouldn't accept a'protection payment'

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#125 - 2015-04-27 20:40:46 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Issues
Now the only issues I see in High-Sec wars are POS's. I think that large towers are far too efficient and cheap in their current format and that the only people who can effectively threaten this asset are awoxers and large groups like the Highsec mercenaries. There is no means in which a average 20-30 man sized corp can take on one of these if it is setup properly. I feel they take copetition away from smaller groups wanting to contest systems/resources in High-Sec. This is my personal observation and I look forward to hearing what you all think.

PS no forum ALT's Blink

CoolCool


Is it too late to talk about the large towers?

https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98143677/

Killing them is certainly possible, though Dirty Stinky is by no means an "average corporation."

I can attest that the process is tedious. I can be done though. A dedicated and prepared group can kill any tower you can build, it's just a matter of how long it will take them. That being said there are very few groups (I only know of one, the one above) that takes out a properly setup large tower.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#126 - 2015-04-27 20:50:53 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Issues
Now the only issues I see in High-Sec wars are POS's. I think that large towers are far too efficient and cheap in their current format and that the only people who can effectively threaten this asset are awoxers and large groups like the Highsec mercenaries. There is no means in which a average 20-30 man sized corp can take on one of these if it is setup properly. I feel they take copetition away from smaller groups wanting to contest systems/resources in High-Sec. This is my personal observation and I look forward to hearing what you all think.

PS no forum ALT's Blink

CoolCool


Is it too late to talk about the large towers?

https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98143677/

Killing them is certainly possible, though Dirty Stinky is by no means an "average corporation."

I can attest that the process is tedious. I can be done though. A dedicated and prepared group can kill any tower you can build, it's just a matter of how long it will take them. That being said there are very few groups (I only know of one, the one above) that takes out a properly setup large tower.

I have taken out a few large towers in WH space in low class with proper groups. I agree it is tedious and it can be done. The problem with them is with corp sizes in Highsec that too few Highsec Corps can actually field the force necessary to destroy them compared to the number of corps that utilize them. The new structures should hopefully do away with this drama tho and my op was poorly written jumble of thoughts Lol. But I needed to get it out as was in this environment to get the feedback necessary to clarify it for myself and so I could see the issues others were having with what a wrote down. Towers will not be a part of my revised OP Blink

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#127 - 2015-04-27 21:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
There's a bunch of dumb stuff about POSes generally, given that in highsec you can transfer materials to and from them in perfect safety using alts, the ability to trash everything stored in them even when they're reinforced and that it takes very little time and effort to set them up, but dozens and dozens of man hours to destroy them and that they defend themselves even when unmanned just makes them a huge pain in the ass.

I don't think they're a big issue really though. I can charge outlandish prices to blow them up after all. I'm not sure how people feel about moon availability and all that crap though.

Also social corps that cannot be wardeced are a terrible idea. It massively undermines competition between groups of players, undermines the basic stated purpose of war declarations and diminishes the accomplishment of players in real corporations who have built and maintained their collective identity in spite of conflicts with other players.

That kind of crap is one step away from toggleable PVP flags.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#128 - 2015-04-27 21:42:45 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
There's a bunch of dumb stuff about POSes generally, given that in highsec you can transfer materials to and from them in perfect safety using alts, the ability to trash everything stored in them even when they're reinforced and that it takes very little time and effort to set them up, but dozens and dozens of man hours to destroy them and that they defend themselves even when unmanned just makes them a huge pain in the ass.

I don't think they're a big issue really though. I can charge outlandish prices to blow them up after all. I'm not sure how people feel about moon availability and all that crap though.

Also social corps are a terrible idea. If you want to communicate with your buddies without being able to be shot at you are perfectly able to do that via a chat channel. If you want an officially recognized group identity that links you all together then you should be subject to aggression from other groups.

I think social corps will help see an end to the useless 1 man corp and flooded npc corps while allowing a small group to bond and if they decide to take that next step and setup a proper corp that can have a structure and what not they can. coupled with a few other changes I can see them having a solid place and not affecting things as they are negatively

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#129 - 2015-04-27 21:44:25 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
There's a bunch of dumb stuff about POSes generally, given that in highsec you can transfer materials to and from them in perfect safety using alts, the ability to trash everything stored in them even when they're reinforced and that it takes very little time and effort to set them up, but dozens and dozens of man hours to destroy them and that they defend themselves even when unmanned just makes them a huge pain in the ass.

I don't think they're a big issue really though. I can charge outlandish prices to blow them up after all. I'm not sure how people feel about moon availability and all that crap though.

Also social corps are a terrible idea. If you want to communicate with your buddies without being able to be shot at you are perfectly able to do that via a chat channel. If you want an officially recognized group identity that links you all together then you should be subject to aggression from other groups.



I think you guys have great ideas.

I'd be ok with the old rules back.

But here is what I really want:

For every PVE or money making task, I think there should be a spectrum decision. The spectrum should run from safe to very risky.

If you play on the safe side, you should be able to see the risk takers making much more isk on each side of you.

Or you can take the much more profitable shortcut that'll lead to meeting the cast of the C&P show.


I think this game should be a constant competition between greed and fear.

That's fun.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#130 - 2015-04-27 21:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
I couldn't give a crap about 1 man corps or NPC corps.

People who've made decisions to be in 1 man corps or NPC corps have done so because they don't particularly care to play with other people. And in making that decision they've sacrificed being part of a cohesive group and having an identity beyond themselves and an individual player.

That's totally okay. They're giving up something important in exchange for their paranoia and antisocial tendencies.

If you had corps that could not be wardeced 99% of all highsec corps would switch over to it, instantaneously. Much like they did with the friendly fire toggle. There's absolutely no value to getting people out of NPC corps if all they do is mine or run incursions in perfect safety. That doesn't actually change anything, it just maintains the status quo at the expense of cheapening everyone elses corp ticker.

It would also render the entire stated purpose of the war declaration system
CCP Unifex wrote:
This system enables anybody who is in a corporation to declare war on anybody for really any reason they want.

If social corps existed you'd have to add the caveat: "Except for all these thousands of people who've decided they don't want to participate." at that point you had may as well remove war declarations entirely, because they'll serve virtually no purpose.

Then we can go ahead and wait for the inevitable suicide ganking toggle.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#131 - 2015-04-27 22:07:13 UTC
Joanna RB wrote:

Theres a big problem with this suggestion. What exactly are you SUPPOSED to do when war decked? 90% of all war decks are between a greifer corp and a corp with absolutely zero chance.


If you have "zero chance", it's your own fault.

That's what your side needs to hurry up and get into your thick skulls already. Your "industrial" corps are not supposed to exist. Defending yourself is not supposed to be optional, and there should be consequences for not recruiting any players with combat skills.

If you don't like, the NPC corps doors are always open.


Quote:
Wardecks completely ruin the game for those on the wrong side of the griefer


Well, I sure couldn't tell. You know, what with my habit of missioning with a faction battleship during a wardec, and having never lost said ship.

If you have half a brain and 51% of an ass, you are safe during a wardec. I mean, seriously, yammering on about only being able to fly rifters? Do you live in a trade hub, or what?


Quote:

Fighting the deck has no benefit whatsoever to the missioning/mining corp grief-decked even if they win. The deck could be by a guy who can only fly stabbers and dies fifteen times a day, but still you cant mission or mine in case he does get you - therefore the griefer still wins even by dying a lot and not killing anyone.


And again, absolutely wrong.


Quote:

We need people staying in the game. Getting wardecked in a non-combatant corp has no enjoyment whatsoever, and makes people leave their corps, hence lose contact with friends, and leave the game.


According to CCP, your claim is 100% false. You know what really does make people leave the game? Getting bored chewing on rocks and shooting red crosses.


Quote:

Wardecks should be for territory, not griefing. Restrict them to corps that hold at least 1 pos/poco (or any alliance) as both aggressor and defender.


First of all, wardecs exist for only one reason.

To get rid of the loathsome presence of Concord. Wardecs exist to blow up precisely you. Your idea is hateful and unacceptable.

Secondly, absolutely nothing you can do with a wardec, under literally any circumstances, counts as "griefing". Wars are an intended mechanic, and being under a wardec is the intended state of the game for player corps.

If you don't like it, you don't belong in a player corp.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#132 - 2015-04-27 22:24:33 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

I think social corps will help see an end to the useless 1 man corp and flooded npc corps while allowing a small group to bond and if they decide to take that next step and setup a proper corp that can have a structure and what not they can. coupled with a few other changes I can see them having a solid place and not affecting things as they are negatively


They have those already. They're called chat channels.

If you really want to get people involved with one another, CCP needs to STOP enabling people trying to ignore the various social aspects of the game, not give them 100% immunity to one thing after another.

Social corps are a bad idea, and 1 man tax evasion corps need to die in a fire as well.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2015-04-27 22:30:14 UTC
This thread sucks.

War. War never changes...

Wait.. no thats another game...

Anyhow... War... is not supposed to be a consensual edict. A declaration of war from one entity unto another does not require the approval of said other entity.

Are war decs in EVE broken? Yes. But not because of the point mentioned above. They are broken because at present, there is no penalty for dodging, and no incentive for the defenders. Not all highsec wars are based on the "clay pigeon" theory (which is true, but not relevant). I have seen carebear corps dec each other for "ownership" of mineral fields, POCOS or moons...

What confuses me the most about the topic is that the belief, as a member of a carebear corp, that you have no options. This is wholly untrue. I present you:


Step one: Join a corp as a new player. Make sure the CEO of that corp is a loudmouth self-important type.
Step two: Have that CEO come to C&P and **** off Vimsy, talking about how regret this and yada yada that....
Step 3: After you get blapped in some of the absolute most tear inducing fits you can muster up, MOVE TO LOWSEC and learn how to PVP.

Why? Why move? Well because MOST merc corps are too invested in their killboards to risk venturing out of highsec. Make friends. Join FW. Come to terms with the fact that losing ships is part of EVE, and can even be FUN. Of course, some will. But they arent just fighting you out there. If your mission running op gets probed down (you are an idiot) by the war deccers, do you think they are bringing T3 bling? Not if they are smart. Why? Because other interested parties would MUCH rather blap a few Legions or Prots than a Moa running level 3's.

Other options would be to join up with others who share your outlook of the game. Who dont wish to fight, but CAN if able. With enough numbers (and some falcon pilots), you can operate in relative safety safety in lowsec.... mining, running missions, whatever your taste may be.

The point is, that in order to function, you need friends. Those friends provide you security. They provide content. And FUN. Dont expect the majority of the game to be forced to change because YOU want to mine in peace. Its EVE. Its not suppose to be that way.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2015-04-27 22:49:58 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Issues
Now the only issues I see in High-Sec wars are POS's. I think that large towers are far too efficient and cheap in their current format and that the only people who can effectively threaten this asset are awoxers and large groups like the Highsec mercenaries. There is no means in which a average 20-30 man sized corp can take on one of these if it is setup properly. I feel they take copetition away from smaller groups wanting to contest systems/resources in High-Sec. This is my personal observation and I look forward to hearing what you all think.

PS no forum ALT's Blink

CoolCool


Is it too late to talk about the large towers?

https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98143677/

Killing them is certainly possible, though Dirty Stinky is by no means an "average corporation."

I can attest that the process is tedious. I can be done though. A dedicated and prepared group can kill any tower you can build, it's just a matter of how long it will take them. That being said there are very few groups (I only know of one, the one above) that takes out a properly setup large tower.

I have taken out a few large towers in WH space in low class with proper groups. I agree it is tedious and it can be done. The problem with them is with corp sizes in Highsec that too few Highsec Corps can actually field the force necessary to destroy them compared to the number of corps that utilize them. The new structures should hopefully do away with this drama tho and my op was poorly written jumble of thoughts Lol. But I needed to get it out as was in this environment to get the feedback necessary to clarify it for myself and so I could see the issues others were having with what a wrote down. Towers will not be a part of my revised OP Blink


I fully agree with everything you said. Large towers are very strong when properly fit and left undefended (by pilots I mean) and they are insanely strong when active pilots defend them.

In wormholes there are more often reasons for dedicating the forces necessary to remove them (though not much more often) than there are in high sec. For the most part it simply isn't worth the trouble.

In High Sec under the current systems the only reason to do it is because you want the moon (moons are worthless now) or you really really really really want to burn their stuff.

Hiring mercs simply isn't cost effective (who wants to play F1 online for 2 - 6 hours?) when you need to split the profits among 20 - 30 guys.

This basically makes Large towers invulnerable unless you catch the eye of the wrong person *coughSnucklefrutscought* (Or miniluv, seriously those are the only two groups I know of who do this in high sec ever)

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#135 - 2015-04-27 22:59:09 UTC
I'd legitimately rather fight triage carriers than a defended large POS.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#136 - 2015-04-27 23:00:53 UTC
I kinda wanted to make wars meaningful with this to give the bear corps more reason to engage in them while not removing them from people who have a score to settle

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#137 - 2015-04-27 23:29:03 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
There's a bunch of dumb stuff about POSes generally, given that in highsec you can transfer materials to and from them in perfect safety using alts, the ability to trash everything stored in them even when they're reinforced and that it takes very little time and effort to set them up, but dozens and dozens of man hours to destroy them and that they defend themselves even when unmanned just makes them a huge pain in the ass.

I don't think they're a big issue really though. I can charge outlandish prices to blow them up after all. I'm not sure how people feel about moon availability and all that crap though.

Also social corps are a terrible idea. If you want to communicate with your buddies without being able to be shot at you are perfectly able to do that via a chat channel. If you want an officially recognized group identity that links you all together then you should be subject to aggression from other groups.

I think social corps will help see an end to the useless 1 man corp and flooded npc corps while allowing a small group to bond and if they decide to take that next step and setup a proper corp that can have a structure and what not they can. coupled with a few other changes I can see them having a solid place and not affecting things as they are negatively


Except in order to not be broken social corps would have no tax break (just like an NPC corp), so you would still see 1 man tax shelter corps.

I don't see what advantage social corps would have that cannot be provided by chat channels and such. Anything that they would provide beyond that would seriously undermine actual corporations.

NPC corps are a necessary evil (you need somewhere to go when you get kicked from corp) which I think are still too good (I think taxes should be higher).

So I would not be in favor of 'social' corps only if NPC corps received significant nerfs and the social corps ended up being a stepping stone into real corps, and pretty much nothing else.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#138 - 2015-04-28 11:42:37 UTC
For the record it should never be the case that my spy alt is the only competent pilot in a properly fit ship in your entire fleet.

While it's really funny for me it also indicates that you're doing something really wrong with how you train your dudes.
Xanthe Alvo
Doomheim
#139 - 2015-04-28 11:51:01 UTC
The problem has never been with hi-sec or corporation mechanics.

The problem is risk averse hi-sec "leet PvPers", "gankers", and "merc corps" who can't seem to find content in low or null sec, so they pick on players who would rather just be left alone. They want PvP on their own terms instead of going out and looking for other PvPers who actually want to fight.

Nowhere in EVE is safe, we get it. Everyone gets it. But this is also the last MMO of its kind, a true sandbox. Forcing your playstyle on others via surprise buttsex PvP in hi-sec is for bored nullbears and players who can't PvP their way out of a paper bag.

The only thing broken here is you.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#140 - 2015-04-28 11:58:20 UTC
Xanthe Alvo wrote:
The problem has never been with hi-sec or corporation mechanics.


Oddly enough, that's just about 100% false.




Quote:

The problem is risk averse hi-sec "leet PvPers", "gankers", and "merc corps" who can't seem to find content in low or null sec, so they pick on players who would rather just be left alone.


No, the problem is that you think you should get to be left alone.


Quote:

They want PvP on their own terms instead of going out and looking for other PvPers who actually want to fight.


EVE was built on the concept of non consensual PvP. If you don't want to fight, go play Star Trek.

Quote:

Nowhere in EVE is safe, we get it. Everyone gets it.


I really don't think you do get it. I also think you're arguing for your denial of reality to become reality, and that's just not going to happen.


Quote:

The only thing broken here is you.


Yeah, because I'm the one playing the game wrong and demanding that my aberrant behavior become the rules, rather than play by the existing rules.

Wait, nope, that's you.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.