These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#61 - 2015-08-24 14:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Large mercenary alliances would frankly devolve into hard core trade hub campers if faced with a hard cap on wars. Previously when cost multipliers were a thing declaring more than 15 wars was pretty expensive (though current mercenary alliances tend to be larger and betternfunded) so the large groups just focused on declaring war on lots of big null entities and blowing up stuff on the 4-4 undock because thats what gets you the most bang for your buck.

A hard cap is reasonable if it's applied to corporations only like it used to be and is offset by something like a decreased cost per war (again like it used to be). When this was the case in the past it served as an incentive for war declaring corps to not be part of an alliance while also limiting their ability to provide content to a large membership. Decreased cost for corporations to declare war would also lower the bar for entry into highsec pvp.

Also special consideration has to be given to wars that result from a corps dropping out of an alliance, alliances failscading often creates large numbers of wars and having the game punish you for your enemy collapsing by locking out your war slots would be pretty ******* annoying.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#62 - 2015-08-24 23:18:38 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Large mercenary alliances would frankly devolve into hard core trade hub campers if faced with a hard cap on wars. Previously when cost multipliers were a thing declaring more than 15 wars was pretty expensive (though current mercenary alliances tend to be larger and betternfunded) so the large groups just focused on declaring war on lots of big null entities and blowing up stuff on the 4-4 undock because thats what gets you the most bang for your buck.

A hard cap is reasonable if it's applied to corporations only like it used to be and is offset by something like a decreased cost per war (again like it used to be). When this was the case in the past it served as an incentive for war declaring corps to not be part of an alliance while also limiting their ability to provide content to a large membership. Decreased cost for corporations to declare war would also lower the bar for entry into highsec pvp.

Also special consideration has to be given to wars that result from a corps dropping out of an alliance, alliances failscading often creates large numbers of wars and having the game punish you for your enemy collapsing by locking out your war slots would be pretty ******* annoying.

I think large merc alliances would probably dissolve or would change radically into high sec/low sec merc corps. There simply wouldn't be enough content for the current mega merc corps.

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
#63 - 2015-08-25 01:06:39 UTC
We had large highsec merc entities when cost multipliers made declaring war on large numbers of different groups. The main difference was that nearly all of their discretionary wars were against the largest most freighter-rich entities they could find.

So long as there's a large financial burden on an alliance declaring wars it's going to be beneficial to group up into large groups. Right now there's basically no value to being in a small group versus a large one right now. You have to shoulder the same kind of financial burden as the large group, with fewer people and a larger group can dunk on you at will at no expense to themselves via the ally system.

In any situation where both corps and alliances share the exact same limitations alliances are going to win out. Trying to force them to be smaller via a cap on the quantity of wars without any actual incentives whatsoever to actually be smaller is not going to have the desired effect, it'll just make them go back to declaring war on Ivy League.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#64 - 2015-08-25 10:00:02 UTC
We've seen more then enough nerfes the last few years in Eve. I cant vote for anyone who wants to continue this path.

And you lost me after a cap of 10 wars. Not sure if you were trolling. If not, your carebear level is WAY to HIGH. P

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#65 - 2015-08-25 10:49:03 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
We've seen more then enough nerfes the last few years in Eve. I cant vote for anyone who wants to continue this path.

And you lost me after a cap of 10 wars. Not sure if you were trolling. If not, your carebear level is WAY to HIGH. P

I support the idea of hard cap of 10 or a serious scaling method like vimsy said IF and only IF there was instead a serious conflit driver added to highsec. And I do mean Serious. POS/POCO/Citadel Cities that you can't even lose assets from unlike a POS (WTF CCP???) are not content drivers on any meaningful scale. It would need to be a limited resource that could not be controlled by one (or even a half dozen) entity/s efficiently. Without something promoting lots of smaller scale conflicts any change reducing wardecs is a bad thing imo.

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
#66 - 2015-08-25 10:51:00 UTC
I agree with Tora.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#67 - 2015-08-25 10:52:45 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I agree with Tora.

Quoted for posterity that future generations may find this when I say it happened

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

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#68 - 2015-08-25 10:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Tora Bushido wrote:
We've seen more then enough nerfes the last few years in Eve. I cant vote for anyone who wants to continue this path.

And you lost me after a cap of 10 wars. Not sure if you were trolling. If not, your carebear level is WAY to HIGH. P

Not a troll, and I'm clearly not a carebear. If you had read the rest of my platform you would have seen that. My goal with the cap (which I will tell you came from a Marmite I spoke with) is not to nerf hisec wardecs, but to drive merc corps more towards a multitude of smaller groups competing with each other instead of, no offense, a large group like Marmite wardeccing everyone under the sun. I want to drive conflict, not nerf wardecs, even if it does mean that the way your alliance happens to operate would have to change. (Just so we're clear, yes, my goal is to make it harder for large wardec corps like Marmite to operate, but not as a way to nerf wardecs so much as a way to drive competition and prevent monopolization of the merc market. If anything, I'd like to see more wars, not fewer, and more competition, not less.)

As I said in my OP, I am willing to listen. I want to make hisec wars interesting, not nerf them. I find blanket wardecs by massive merc corps to be boring, and many folks I've talked with agree with me. Clearly they need to change. Do you have suggestions for me, or are you simply throwing in the towel and telling me to get lost?

EDIT:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Without something promoting lots of smaller scale conflicts any change reducing wardecs is a bad thing imo.

This. Without making player corps worth fighting for, just capping wardecs at 10 would be an outright nerf and I wouldn't support it. The cap is part of a larger plan to help drive conflict, not just "meh, nerf wardecs."

If you haven't read my whole platform, I please ask that you do.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#69 - 2015-08-25 11:13:59 UTC
From Leto's thread announcing my nomination:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I honestly don't trust CCP to follow up by nerfing NPC corps and removing dec dodge in exchange for nerfing wars with increased fees, which would mean that you've just accidentally advocated for a net nerf, and highsec congeals still further.

I share that concern. This is why I think we need someone on the CSM who has hisec and wardecs in mind to keep them to it.

I know that CCP has been all about small, incremental changes lately (except when they're not) and I can understand why. But the problem with incremental change is that it's easy to stop ebfore you're finished. Ideally I'd like a plan in place for all of this (wardec fees, corp changes, hisec income reduction, etc.) before the first change gets made, or to make them all at once.



When I ran last year (something I don't have time to do this year) my suggestion was the following:

- Scale wardecs according to the size of the aggressor entity, not the defender. Cheaper for small aggressors (I proposed 10m * sqrt(X) where X is the size of the aggressor entity, capped at 2500 members).

- Rebalance NPC corp tax to have less impact on new players and more on veterans. Specifically, instead of 11% of the entire bounty tick if it is over 100k, make it 30% of the portion of the tick that exceeds 300k. (So a bounty tick of 1.5 million is taxed at 0.3(1.5m-0.3m) = 360k). Importantly, apply this to incursion payouts.

- Make player corporations worth sticking with through the bad times, by adding some system that makes corporations with a long history of PVE get slightly more LP for PVE activities, but this would only apply to corp members that have at least a 14 day membership tenure. So dropping a corp to dodge a dec then rejoining a week later causes you to miss out on three weeks of this bonus.


Here are my thoughts:

I completely agree with your second two points in principle. Player corps need to be worth fighting for and NPC corps need to penalize players who live in them long term. Your particular mechanisms could do well and are similar to what I proposed.

I used to agree with the scaling wardec fees but every mechanism I either thought of or had shared with me had one thing in common: they encouraged larger and larger merc corps in order to be able to take more contracts to cover the larger wardec fees. I don't want a hisec with one or two massive merc corps wardeccing everyone under the sun, I want a multitude of smaller corps each competing with each other for who gets the best contracts. Competition drives conflict, but monopolies (even monopolies on war) kill competition.

If you don't like my method of limiting merc corp size (i.e. wardec caps), do you have another idea to help drive hisec war conflict? I'd genuinely like to know. I don't like caps and find them arbitrary and annoying, but in this case I think they may be necessary to prevent eventual merc monopolies.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#70 - 2015-08-25 11:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Who are you to decide merc groups can't be big, just because it doesnt suite your play style. Say that to Goonswarm and see how hard they will laugh at you when you tell them its better for Eve if they all split up. It's a sandbox and I will step on all of your care bear castles if it suites me.

Maybe you should only be allowed to mine 1 belt per week, 1 mission a day, 2 incursisons a month, max 2 posses........ or it wont be fair to all the others who want to make money too. Let's do some Kumbaya songs.

For now, I'll keep thinking you're trolling. What?

Quote:
Do you have suggestions for me, or are you simply throwing in the towel and telling me to get lost?
Get lost....

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#71 - 2015-08-25 12:31:22 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Who are you to decide merc groups can't be big, just because it doesnt suite your play style. Say that to Goonswarm and see how hard they will laugh at you when you tell them its better for Eve if they all split up. It's a sandbox and I will step on all of your care bear castles if it suites me.

Maybe you should only be allowed to mine 1 belt per week, 1 mission a day, 2 incursisons a month, max 2 posses........ or it wont be fare to all the others who want to make money too. Let's do some Kumbaya songs.

For now, I'll keep thinking you're trolling. What?

Quote:
Do you have suggestions for me, or are you simply throwing in the towel and telling me to get lost?
Get lost....

Who am I? I'm the guy who sees blanket wardecs stifling new player corp creation. I'm the guy who wants to make player corps worth fighting for. I'm the guy who wants to drive competition between merc corps. Ultimately, I'm the guy who thinks that risk vs reward in hisec is broken and needs to be adjusted, and this platform is how I propose it be done. I don't want to nerf wardecs, if anything I want to make them more meaningful. You'd know that if you bothered to read my whole platform.

Since I'm the one proposing ideas and willing to listen to suggestions and you, well you just come off as butthurt, I'm going to call you the troll here. If you can't contribute constructively, GTFO of my thread and go camp a station or something.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#72 - 2015-08-25 12:47:03 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Who am I? I'm the guy who sees blanket wardecs stifling new player corp creation.


I don't see that. I see new player corps all the time, I just see them fold because there isn't any reason to keep them. That's a problem with NPC corps being too attractive, not with wardecs.

"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.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#73 - 2015-08-25 12:51:41 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
blanket wardecs stifling new player corp creation.


Is this a bad thing? As it is, there's way too many corps being created by people who don't have the first clue about running an Eve corp, either because they assume it's just like running a guild in any other MMORPG, or some other reason.

Is it possible that a genuine newbie who has a bad experience in their first player-run corp will be less likely to bother trying again, and that the more unprepared CEOs that are put off creating a bad corp, the better?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#74 - 2015-08-25 12:55:13 UTC
Give me facts and not personal feelings. Stop assuming things. And this isnt your thread, it's a forum for all Eve players. So stop being egocentric thinking you control who replies or not. I step on your care bear sandbox thread whenever I feel like it. Deal with it, until an ISD things I'm crossing a line. This is Eve.

A good CSM talks to ALL players in Eve, even if he totally disagrees with them or hates their game style. Then and only then you can set a direction.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#75 - 2015-08-25 13:08:21 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Give me facts and not personal feelings. Stop assuming things. And this isnt your thread, it's a forum for all Eve players. So stop being egocentric thinking you control who replies or not. I step on your care bear sandbox thread whenever I feel like it. Deal with it, until an ISD things I'm crossing a line. This is Eve.

A good CSM talks to ALL players in Eve, even if he totally disagrees with them or hates their game style. Then and only then you can set a direction.

I am willing to talk if you are willing to hear me out. If all I get is "wah wah this nerfs how I play the game" without any rational thought behind it then I will still listen but I will have a very hard time taking you seriously.

As far as I know, you still haven't read my platform past the 10 wardec limit. I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts on the other parts of my proposal if you take the time to read them. I actually imagine that we would see eye to eye on some of my other points.

I am open to suggestions. I have goal in sight, and that goal is a state of hisec where risk and reward are more balanced*, not a specific list of changes. If we as a community can agree to an end state and come up with a different list of changes to accomplish it, I am 100% open to that.



*Yes, this includes making large merc corps harder to operate because, right now, they can effectively operate with comparatively little risk.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#76 - 2015-08-25 13:19:05 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
We had large highsec merc entities when cost multipliers made declaring war on large numbers of different groups. The main difference was that nearly all of their discretionary wars were against the largest most freighter-rich entities they could find.

So long as there's a large financial burden on an alliance declaring wars it's going to be beneficial to group up into large groups. Right now there's basically no value to being in a small group versus a large one right now. You have to shoulder the same kind of financial burden as the large group, with fewer people and a larger group can dunk on you at will at no expense to themselves via the ally system.

In any situation where both corps and alliances share the exact same limitations alliances are going to win out. Trying to force them to be smaller via a cap on the quantity of wars without any actual incentives whatsoever to actually be smaller is not going to have the desired effect, it'll just make them go back to declaring war on Ivy League.

Vimsy: keep in mind that the hard limit is only part of the change. It's coupled with a scaling cost to wardec fees that increases with the size of the aggressor. The bigger the deccing corp relative to their target, the more they'd have to pay. If this scale is steep enough, it would encourage either smaller merc corps (to lower costs), or force larger corps to focus on larger, more lucrative targets (to increase potential profits) instead of a mass blanket of decs against smaller corps.

I'm not against large wardec corps per se. I just see their risk vs. reward math as being askew. I'm only against them operating en masse at low risk as they do now.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#77 - 2015-08-25 13:20:45 UTC
You still never responded to how all of your platform is pointless and a waste of time. There are a LOT of hisec residents that don't like wars at all and don't want to see any conflict drivers added. They want complete peace and your platform is completely one-sided in that fact. Your changes are only going to appeal to the small 0.01 percent of players within this forum, which is why this is a joke...

You need to get on board with fixing and polishing a lot more than making this game riskier if you want to be a true representative for hisec.

- What are your suggestions for making it WORTH joining and staying in a corp (even when it gets rough)?
- What do you think about corp and faction standings and should they be changed in any way?
- What do you think about the corporation UI and do you have any suggestions on how it can be less of a headache to manage?
- What do you think about (freighter) bumping?
- What do you think about hyperdunking?

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#78 - 2015-08-25 13:21:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I do not like the idea of caps, they are a mechanic design that is fraught with peril, and in general they should be avoided. I also dislike the concept of "waiting periods", or whatever you want to call your ideas to have recruitment cooldowns. Too heavy handed.

While I do like many of the ideas presented, those two stuck out at me as potential pitfalls.

I agree that the waiting period on corp membership is a bit contrived. However, I see corp dodging (i.e. dropping corp to dodge a wardec) as a real issue, and I am open to alternatives that achieve the same effect.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#79 - 2015-08-25 13:33:39 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
You still never responded to how all of your platform is pointless and a waste of time. There are a LOT of hisec residents that don't like wars at all and don't want to see any conflict drivers added. They want complete peace and your platform is completely one-sided in that fact. Your changes are only going to appeal to the small 0.01 percent of players within this forum, which is why this is a joke...

You need to get on board with fixing and polishing a lot more than making this game riskier if you want to be a true representative for hisec.

- What are your suggestions for making it WORTH joining and staying in a corp (even when it gets rough)?
- What do you think about corp and faction standings and should they be changed in any way?
- What do you think about the corporation UI and do you have any suggestions on how it can be less of a headache to manage?
- What do you think about (freighter) bumping?
- What do you think about hyperdunking?


I was actually going through some posts to date and your first one was coming up. I'll start with these though:

1. My proposal regarding "corp history" addresses this, although, admittedly, in a vague manner because I don't have a specific mechanism in mind. I want to change player corps such that, over time, they earn some kind of benefit and the longer they exist and the more active they are, the bigger that benefit. I would actually like to see hisec residents potentially be able to make more ISK than they do now, so long as they are willing to stick with a player corp for the long haul instead of dropping corp to dodge wardecs or living in NPC corps (i.e. increased risk/effort).

2. I think that the current mechanic of player corps gaining all of their external standings directly from their members limits the desire to keep a corp whole. Being able to form a new corp with the same players and have all of the standings transfer limits the desire to retain the corp and makes it feel "disposable". If corps themselves had separate standings that they earned that didn't transfer, it would motivate players to stay.

3. I think the corp UI can definitely use some work, but I have no specific suggestions. I'm a gamer, not a UI engineer. Blink

4. Freighter bumping (and bumping in general), is a perfectly legal and legitimate form of gameplay, and one that can often be avoided if you take the proper precautions. I don't see the need for any changes here.

5. I'm on the fence on hyperdunking. It's legal (for now), and it does satisfy risk v reward criteria (the hyperdunnker is still losing X number of ships), but it feels somehow...off to me in a way I can't quantify. I am not opposed to it in it's current form, but I am willing to discuss possible changes if someone can provide concrete reasons as to why it's any worse than regular suicide ganking.


Gotta run to work. I'll address more posts later. Thanks for the feedback.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#80 - 2015-08-25 16:25:14 UTC
Leto Thule wrote:
Everyone needs to make ISK. Bearing isnt a bad thing. Expecting to print ISK with no risk is the bad part.

I'm going to take a moment to harp on this.

This is the single largest problem I see with hisec. Too many are players making too much ISK too easily with too little risk within the relatively safe and inexpensive confines of NPC corps. Every aspect of my platform is based on somehow addressing this one underlying issue. I don't want to nerf anyone's income or gameplay, but I do want them to have to exert a level of effort and expose themselves to a level of risk commensurate with that income and/or gameplay.

I realize that my opening posts were verbose, but that's because I wanted to get my whole thought processes out in the open. In my desire to be open, I feel like I may have failed to convey this basic tenet.

Consider that rectified. (I hope)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs