These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#81 - 2015-08-25 17:36:17 UTC
Captain Phil wrote:

1C. Change corporation behavior.
No thank you. EvE is complex enough as it is. Please do not add unnecessary layers. If a person does not want to fight, then they don't have to. They're still being sufficiently harassed and denied access, forced to run from corp to corp. Isn't that enough?

First off, when someone leaves a corp to dodge a wardec, they are doing it by choice. Nobody is forcing them to do it.

While I agree that the mechanic I proposed feels somewhat contrived, it does match my goals: make dodging wardecs harder and make player corps more meaningful. Do you have a better way to achieve that that is less contrived?

Captain Phil wrote:
3. Adjust hisec agents.
I currently run level 4s out of a 0.6 system. They are not the problem, please don't change them.

You're right. Level 4 agents in 0.5 and 0.6 systems aren't the problem. Level 4 agents in 1.0 and 0.9 systems are.

Captain Phil wrote:
5C: Balance the Procurer and Skiff.
Keep your ****ing hands off my ****ing procurer you ****ing piece of ****. Mechanics are not the issue. Player MENTALITY is the issue. We focus too much on isk/hour, and we're so afraid of losing virtual assets that we deny ourselves the opportunity for fun. Mechanics can't change this; if it could it would have happened by now.

If you want players to change their behaviour, you have to take the first step. Maybe we lay off on wardeccing mercilessly, or cut back on the low sec gate camps. Will a miner ever take the risk of going to lowsec when they know everyone is foaming at the mouth to kill them?

My proposed change to the Procurer has less to do with player behavior and more to do with the fact that the Procurer & Skiff has a clear and obvious numerical advantage over the other barges. I'm all for players mining in their Retrievers and Covetors if they like, but if they want the protection of a Procurer, they should not also get some of the benefits of a Retriever.

Also, I mine in losec quite regularly and have yet to suffer a mining loss there. While I do understand that many folks in the area will shoot me on sight, I have learned to deal with that. That's kind of the point of losec. You don't get people into losec by making losec less dangerous, you get them into losec by teaching them how to survive there in face of the danger. I do agree that this is a player mentality issue, not a game mechanic issue, but it has nothing to do with my proposed Procurer/Skiff change.

Captain Phil wrote:
Bronson, you mentioned that you're 100% independent. What business do you have running on a platform of wardec and corporation changes when you yourself do not work with a team? 1v1 Thunderdome competitions are not the solution.

My business is that I am an active member of the C&P community and a handful of other active members felt that I should run based on my views, experiences, and overall good nature. Said experience includes (recently, and in no particular order) running level 4 missions in hisec, mining in hisec and losec, industry & research, POS operations, exploration, operating a small hisec wardec/merc/PvP corp and (much less recently) living out in nullsec doing nullsec F1-monkey things. My corp often works alone and it is beholden to nobody, but I do maintain contact with other, larger groups, so I am aware on some level of issues beyond those I see directly.

Captain Phil wrote:
Free tip: Start small. If you can get everyone to honor their ransoms, you can fix EvE. Think about it.

You think that's small? Figuring out a way to do that may well be the most fundamental change to ever happen in EvE.... Blink

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#82 - 2015-08-25 17:41:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.

Player corps come with at least one heavy drawback (wardec vulnerability) without much to compensate them (lower taxes, access to POSes & hangars, etc.), which makes NPC corps far more appealing to a large number of players. I'd like to change that balance; risk vs. reward should work both ways. I'd like to encourage folks to take the risk of staying in a player corp instead of letting it fold by rewarding them relative to staying in an NPC corp.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#83 - 2015-08-25 17:47:22 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:


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.


Hyperdunking is hilariously easy to prevent, and even easier to stop dead in it's tracks. Anyone in local can come save you. Anyone in any chat you have friends in can come save you. And if you start calling for help early, you'll have 15 minutes to 30 minutes for help to arrive, and it won't take much for them to save you. Even your newbro friend in a t1 frigate can save you.

There's no problem with Hyperdunking beyond people utterly failing to protect themselves.

I'm willing to discuss self-defense tactics in regards to Hyperdunking with anyone who asks, but this isn't the place.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#84 - 2015-08-25 18:00:53 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:


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.


Hyperdunking is hilariously easy to prevent, and even easier to stop dead in it's tracks. Anyone in local can come save you. Anyone in any chat you have friends in can come save you. And if you start calling for help early, you'll have 15 minutes to 30 minutes for help to arrive, and it won't take much for them to save you. Even your newbro friend in a t1 frigate can save you.

There's no problem with Hyperdunking beyond people utterly failing to protect themselves.

I'm willing to discuss self-defense tactics in regards to Hyperdunking with anyone who asks, but this isn't the place.

And this is precisely what I meant by concrete posting. If someone could provide a post this concrete in opposition to hyperdunking, I'd consider pushing for a change. I have yet to see one anywhere, which is why I'm letting my head trump my gut feeling on this.

Thanks.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#85 - 2015-08-25 18:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
You can wrap your ideas in pink paper, they'll still be nerfes. You not seeing that makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. I read all your posts, the main reason I said twice stop assuming things. You haven't given me any facts, that there is a problem, other then your feelings and those you care bear with.

You claim large merc corps have it easy and without any risk. It's clear you have no idea how much time and energy I put in this alliance to keep it running and how much isks I spend every week (8-10B+) to keep it running. Do you think I make more in loot than that ? So stop the bull **** low risk thing, as financially I have a huge risk. We even lose a lot on those wars. Only reason we can run this, is because of out of alliance resources. Risk is not just defined by being shot. If Marmites would be mission running or incursion running, yes, then we would have 0 risk.

If large mercs would be operating without any risk or effort, dont you think we would have dozens of large merc alliances ?

So I dont mind you posting stuff, but do your homework first.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2015-08-25 19:14:29 UTC
Would your proposed tax increase for NPC corps include starter corps as well? They shouldn't. Also, it feels a bit like most of the non-wardec related changes you propose are specifically designed to please your merc and suicide ganker friends.

Many people choose to stay in starter corps on their mains (or their sole pilots) because our preferred play style is casual, and we like helping new characters and being a part of an exclusive, friendly community (as in once you leave a starter corp, you can't go back). Starter corps already pay a relatively hefty tax rate, and choking people out of starter corps with an additional all-activity-encompassing 10% tax just because some people feel we need to be forced to participate in PVP is misguided.

Also, it is plainly obvious many players just don't understand, or outright hate, carebear mission runners. Many of us are happy doing L4 missions in .8-1.0 space, despite the lower rewards compared to .5's, because we understand that's the price we pay for the decreased likelihood of suicide ganks. Forcing mission runners into .5 space, clearly for the sole purpose of exposing them to suicide gankers who will be pleased at the greatly reduced costs of said ganking, is also misguided in my opinion.

Some may call this heresy, but some people find thorough fulfillment out of this game from the small things. To me, finally training into a Kronos, buying that pretty police skin, and flying around in a relatively shiny fit running missions and RP'ing like a nerd is therapeutic. Yes, that leaves me open to suicide ganks, and I lost a 1.5B pod the other day (my first jump clone death) . And that's fine, kudos to my killer for pulling it off so efficiently, and I told him as much. What would turn me off? Being unable to fly marauders for L4 because they will 100% get suicide ganked in .5s where all the gankers will be hunting. That it will forever by suicide to fit bling. Unless, of course, I want to spent my time glued to the directional scanner, which is not my idea of fun.

Incursion ISK is apparently too great and may need to be nerfed (I've never run them so I don't know) but if you think running L4's in 1.0 is giving me ridiculous, unfair amounts of ISK, you are misinformed. For casual players who don't have 5 alts boosting and money-making and whatnot, such L4's are a steady stream of decent income. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#87 - 2015-08-25 19:21:28 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
You can wrap your ideas in pink paper, they'll still be nerfes. You not seeing that makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. I read all your posts, the main reason I said twice stop assuming things. You haven't given me any facts, that there is a problem, other then your feelings and those you care bear with.

I'll stop assuming that you haven't read past my first post when you stop assuming that I'm just another bear. I'm not. I'm not as aggressive or well-known as you and Marmite, but my corp's aggressive war history is rather long. I bear to pay the bills, but my bills are largely from hisec wars.

Maybe if you talked about something beyond the first point I would have an easier time believing you when you said you've read past it. You and I beating our respective chests at each other accomplishes nothing. If you don't like something I've proposed (beyond the first point, which we've already covered at length), tell me why and what you would do differently. If you don't like my overall goal of making hisec a riskier place to operate (for everyone), please tell me why and what you would like to see instead. That's all I ask. Didn't you say that I should talk to all comers?

I know that this can sound condescending over text, but believe me when I say it's not. I'm not trolling, I'm not an angry bear or a bitter merc, I'm looking to understand what people want. Even you, loveable chap that you are. Roll I have some ideas and some impressions from people and the beginning of a vision, but I don't claim to have all of the answers, so I'm asking for input.

Tora Bushido wrote:
You claim large merc corps have it easy and without any risk. It's clear you have no idea how much time and energy I put in this alliance to keep it running and how much isks I spend every week (8-10B+) to keep it running. Do you think I make more in loot than that ? So stop the bull **** low risk thing, as financially I have a huge risk. We even lose a lot on those wars. Only reason we can run this, is because of out of alliance resources. Risk is not just defined by being shot. If Marmites would be mission running or incursion running, yes, then we would have 0 risk.

If large mercs would be operating without any risk or effort, dont you think we would have dozens of large merc alliances ?

So I dont mind you posting stuff, but do your homework first.

I never meant to imply that running a large merc group was easy or effortless, and if I did so I apologize. I know first hand that running any group of any size takes a lot of effort, especially one as active as Marmite, which is precisely why I run a very small corp.

Your financial risk I can somewhat understand. I don't imagine that you make much, if any, actual profit from war loot (I know I typically don't), and I imagine that surrender/protection income is unreliable (it's never worked for me), but as a merc corp aren't your clients supposed to cover your costs to wardec their desired targets? If they're not then either you're not charging enough for your services or your operating costs are too high. This isn't EvE mechanics, it's basic economics.

As for combat risk...I'm going to largely withhold comment for now. Your killboards are exceedingly green so you obviously don't lose ships that often, but I also know that killboards don't tell the whole story so I don't want to make any assumption. Let's just say that there is a long and distinguished list of player corps who wouldn't want to wardec Marmite and that provides you with some degree of risk alleviation even if you're not directly aware of it.


Going back to the economics for a moment, imagine a hisec where more players are in player corps, and thus vulnerable to wardecs. Imagine also that they're more spread out so they're less likely to get assistance in a timely manner, less likely to drop corp or otherwise dodge the wardec because corps are worth keeping, and potentially richer from reaping the new benefits of being in a player corp. Wouldn't that provide you with a more target-rich environment? Yes, you'd have to travel more so you'd lose the benefit of a home field advantage, but I can't ever imagine having more potential targets being a bad thing from a merc's point of view. Am I wrong here?

(And, yes, I do realize that what I just described borders on fantasy. I am a firm believer in stretch goals.)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#88 - 2015-08-25 19:36:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
#89 - 2015-08-25 20:22:08 UTC
Hello Bronson,

I am glad that you are standing up for what you believe in. As much as high-sec needs a change for the better you are definitely talking to the wrong crowd. Do you understand that you are talking to the Wolves? When have the wolves ever outnumbered the sheep? Player, if you want to become a CSM you need to leave the woods and visit the pasture with the other grazing creatures. Why do I say this? Well its quite simple, you are in one of the smallest corporations in Eve with maybe 3 alts at best to vote for yourself. Lets say you get another 10 votes from the people that clicked your CSM thread(we get quite a few each year), and another 20 because people like your friendly name.

You do know that most CSM members get 500+ votes to hold office? Hell I bet Tora got way more than 500 but still it wasn't enough to compete with the masses. You need to either be in a major null-sec alliance, have a popular YouTube channel, be agreed upon by the Wormhole powers that be, or be loved amongst the RvB community.

What do all of those examples have in common? They are community based. Every Null-Sec CSM talked about Null-Sec changes. Every Wormhole CSM talked about wormholes. You should get the idea from here. If you are to really makes waves in an election you'll need to be popular amongst all of high-sec. What makes up the majority of the high-sec player base? Incursion runners(+2000 people), mission runners(+2000 people), miners (+2000 people), traders(+2000 people), industrialists(+2000 people).

Which community are you presenting to? Mercenaries and gankers(-2000 people). Honestly if you are building a campaign that is this laughably outnumbered and think it's worth the time, I don't know if I could ever vote for you. Like seriously, your math sucks. I'm not saying I don't like your ideas but is having sex without a condom a good idea too?

Mercenaries and Gankers are a dying breed that is heavily outnumbered by the protected sheep of high-sec. I believe the only thing we can do to preserve our species is to honestly not talk about it. CCP knows that wars help make a sandbox but they also know that the PVE community(+10,000 people) enjoys Eve in its current state. The last time CCP tried to nerf incursions they redacted their change within a week. The less we talk about wars, the longer we get to keep our way of life.

For your CSM platform, if you really want to be a CSM, you should take my advice and socialize with the sheep. Join the incursion communities and make yourself well known, join the hauler channels, join RvB and help out their community, learn how to edit videos and get subscribers on youtube, AND most importantly train your Reddit game because its the new forums of Eve. Your only path to be a seating member of the CSM is to have the carebears KNOW you and LIKE you and to drop the merc/ganker talk. Anyways I hope you enjoyed my advice and as always you do you.

My 2 cents,
Zeus

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#90 - 2015-08-25 22:09:09 UTC
Zeus Maximo wrote:
The last time CCP tried to nerf incursions they redacted their change within a week. The less we talk about wars, the longer we get to keep our way of life.


That's exactly why we should be hard line, not compromising, most of all to a demographic that basically does not vote for the CSM at all. They have been having their way with the game for entirely too long, and just saying that we shouldn't talk about our playstyle while they snip it away a piece at a time is unbelievably defeatist.

Whether we talk about it or not, they still hate our existence, because they do not believe in live and let live. They still deleted awoxing, basically without any real justification, because they hate the fact that we exist at all. If we do not stand up and do something against this death of a thousand cuts, we all may as well just quit the game right now.

There is something to your talk of "court the electorate", but it's damn sure not highsec that gets people elected. They can't even manage to fly at the keyboard, let alone vote. If you want in, you need to start kissing some Goon and some Wormhole ass. Those are the two most unified voting blocs in the game, and unlike highsec bears they actually vote.

"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.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#91 - 2015-08-25 22:14:34 UTC
Zeus Maximo wrote:
Politically savvy advice.

Thank you for the input.

If my primary goal was simply to win a seat on the CSM, everything you're saying would be a fabulous idea.

The problem is that I'm not simply trying to win a seat on the CSM, I'm trying to win a seat representing the community I come from on the CSM. Sure, I plan to broaden my message beyond C&P, but at the end of the day it will be to spread the word and maybe pick up some support. I have no plans on changing my platform to the point that it no longer represents my core community. That's not me.

Incidentally, I do have a YouTube channel where I post any Thunderdome matches that I record. It's small, but growing, and I imagine it's mostly subscribed to by folks here in C&P.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Captain Phil
Miner's Revenge
#92 - 2015-08-26 00:49:58 UTC
Quote:
First off, when someone leaves a corp to dodge a wardec, they are doing it by choice. Nobody is forcing them to do it.

While I agree that the mechanic I proposed feels somewhat contrived, it does match my goals: make dodging wardecs harder and make player corps more meaningful. Do you have a better way to achieve that that is less contrived?


I don't offer a solution because I don't perceive there to be an issue. There has to be a point where the pursuit ends; we currently draw the line at a corporation being able to disband and reform indefinitely. This is acceptable for the following reasons:
1. They cannot hold POCOs or Control Towers during this time.
2. Employment history gets littered with garbage (the main reason I won't dodge a wardec)
3. Potential to lose a favored corp/alliance name (remember BoB and GoonSwarm)
4. Any rented offices are unrented without refund.

We can only push the line so far before the only option a player has to avoid getting killed in a war is to unsubscribe. Is that the stance we should take? Unsubscribe or die?

Quote:

You're right. Level 4 agents in 0.5 and 0.6 systems aren't the problem. Level 4 agents in 1.0 and 0.9 systems are.


While suicide ganking is a necessary part of the game, It's not something that needs to be taken into consideration when making adjustments in other areas. Please remember, teamwork is good for all aspects of EvE, suicide ganking included. Decreased CONCORD response will discourage teamwork, as it will make it easier to get the job done with less people.

Quote:
My proposed change to the Procurer has less to do with player behavior and more to do with the fact that the Procurer & Skiff has a clear and obvious numerical advantage over the other barges. I'm all for players mining in their Retrievers and Covetors if they like, but if they want the protection of a Procurer, they should not also get some of the benefits of a Retriever.

Also, I mine in losec quite regularly and have yet to suffer a mining loss there. While I do understand that many folks in the area will shoot me on sight, I have learned to deal with that. That's kind of the point of losec. You don't get people into losec by making losec less dangerous, you get them into losec by teaching them how to survive there in face of the danger. I do agree that this is a player mentality issue, not a game mechanic issue, but it has nothing to do with my proposed Procurer/Skiff change.


I mine solo, so I use the retriever for the increased ore hold. Suicide attempts are made against me regularly. I recognize that in situations where someone else is doing the hauling, then the procurer is a superior vessel. Nonetheless, the procurer is a ship that will get people into lowsec. Reducing it's tank will only impact suicide ganking which, again, really shouldn't be taken into consideration in these matters.
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#93 - 2015-08-26 00:51:31 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:


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.


Hyperdunking is hilariously easy to prevent, and even easier to stop dead in it's tracks. Anyone in local can come save you. Anyone in any chat you have friends in can come save you. And if you start calling for help early, you'll have 15 minutes to 30 minutes for help to arrive, and it won't take much for them to save you. Even your newbro friend in a t1 frigate can save you.

There's no problem with Hyperdunking beyond people utterly failing to protect themselves.

I'm willing to discuss self-defense tactics in regards to Hyperdunking with anyone who asks, but this isn't the place.

And this is precisely what I meant by concrete posting. If someone could provide a post this concrete in opposition to hyperdunking, I'd consider pushing for a change. I have yet to see one anywhere, which is why I'm letting my head trump my gut feeling on this.

Thanks.

I didn't ask because I want to see it changed. I was just curious on your stance. I obviously approve of it :)
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#94 - 2015-08-26 01:33:19 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
I didn't ask because I want to see it changed. I was just curious on your stance. I obviously approve of it :)

Given your reputation, I kinda gathered that. Still wanted to give an honest answer. Pirate

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#95 - 2015-08-26 01:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Captain Phil wrote:
Quote:
My proposed change to the Procurer has less to do with player behavior and more to do with the fact that the Procurer & Skiff has a clear and obvious numerical advantage over the other barges. I'm all for players mining in their Retrievers and Covetors if they like, but if they want the protection of a Procurer, they should not also get some of the benefits of a Retriever.

Also, I mine in losec quite regularly and have yet to suffer a mining loss there. While I do understand that many folks in the area will shoot me on sight, I have learned to deal with that. That's kind of the point of losec. You don't get people into losec by making losec less dangerous, you get them into losec by teaching them how to survive there in face of the danger. I do agree that this is a player mentality issue, not a game mechanic issue, but it has nothing to do with my proposed Procurer/Skiff change.


I mine solo, so I use the retriever for the increased ore hold. Suicide attempts are made against me regularly. I recognize that in situations where someone else is doing the hauling, then the procurer is a superior vessel. Nonetheless, the procurer is a ship that will get people into lowsec. Reducing it's tank will only impact suicide ganking which, again, really shouldn't be taken into consideration in these matters.

I don't want to change the Procurer's tank. I think it's tank is just fine and a necessary counterpoint to the weak tank of the Retriever and Covetor. I want to reduce it's ore hold.

Also, for losec mining the Venture and Prospect are perfectly viable options. On a personal note, Prospect gangs are my preferred method of losec mining. Fast, stealthy, and can easily speed tank most belt/anom 'rats. A great way to get in and out quickly, even in the face of gate camps.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#96 - 2015-08-26 02:14:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
After some feedback and discussions here, and some discussions elsewhere, I have decided to amend the specifics of my platform somewhat. (I will update the OPs as well.)

1A. Hard cap on aggressive wardecs. Kill it. Kill it dead with fire. I was looking for a way to promote more selective wardeccing instead of blanket decs, and while this filled that need, it simply created too many problems. Arbitrary limits are bad game design, even if they serve good goals.

1B. Change wardec fees. Add "number of wardecs" to the scaling factor. Corps will be able to wardec as many other corps as they see fit, but more active wars at once will cost more ISK.

1C. Change corporation behavior. Kill this one dead too. I still want to dissuade wardec defenders from jumping corp to dodge the wardec, but, like with hard caps, complex and arbitrary mechanics are not the way to do it.

3. Adjust hisec agents. Instead of moving any agents anywhere, or changing the level of any agents anywhere, change the rewards for missions (both ISK and LP) to scale upwards with decreasing security level. Players who are running level 4 missions in 0.9 and 1.0 systems will continue to be able to do so, with their same agent, at their same system, but they will no longer earn as much as players running level 4s in 0.5 and 0.6 systems.


That's it for now.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#97 - 2015-08-26 02:39:31 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
After some feedback and discussions here, and some discussions elsewhere, I have decided to amend the specifics of my platform somewhat. (I will update the OPs as well.)

1A. Hard cap on aggressive wardecs. Kill it. Kill it dead with fire. I was looking for a way to promote more selective wardeccing instead of blanket decs, and while this filled that need, it simply created too many problems. Arbitrary limits are bade game design, even if they serve good goals.

1B. Change wardec fees. Add "number of wardecs" to the scaling factor. Corps will be able to wardec as many other corps as they see fit, but more active wars at once will cost more ISK.

1C. Change corporation behavior. Kill this one dead too. I still want to dissuade wardec defenders from jumping corp to dodge the wardec, but, like with hard caps, complex and arbitrary mechanics are not the way to do it.

3. Adjust hisec agents. Instead of moving any agents anywhere, or changing the level of any agents anywhere, change the rewards for missions (both ISK and LP) to scale upwards with decreasing security level. Players who are running level 4 missions in 0.9 and 1.0 systems will continue to be able to do so, with their same agent, at their same system, but they will no longer earn as much as players running level 4s in 0.5 and 0.6 systems.


That's it for now.


If enough benefits for remaining loyal to a corp were added then corps would likely recruit pvp oriented players or hire mercs on a regular basis. It's quite possible this would diminish the need for blanket decs and remove the desire for a hard cap.I agree with there being no need for it. I also agree with the other changes.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#98 - 2015-08-26 03:35:00 UTC
A few thoughts.



I think that both large merc corps wardeccing anything and everyone AND small corps of dedicated hunters should be a part of the future of highsec. Both the Marmite style of play AND the Cannibal Kane style of play (if people remember him) should be viable, along with things between those extremes.

Also I'd like to see more options to wardec for profit, or to control specific areas of space.

I feel any overhaul should do the following:

1 - Incentivise the defenders to remain in their corp
2 - Incentivise the defenders to actively resist by shooting the attackers (possibly through a modification of the bounty system)
3 - Provide defenders with access to information on defensive strategies (outside the game client)
4 - Strongly discourage corp dissolution/reformation
5 - Provide methods for defenders to recruit allies to defend them if they are modestly outgunned
6 - Provide methods for corporations that feel they are completely and hopelessly outgunned to surrender, ending the war at considerable cost (both economic and strategic cost).

My earlier post went over suggestions for addressing 1 and 4.

Addressing my thoughts on the others.

2 - Here I feel the wardec fee should not disappear from the game, but should be held in escrow as a time-limited bounty on the attackers, claimable only be defending parties in the war (that is, the defender entity and allies). If not claimed, it disappears.

3 - The in-client information given to players upon their corp being wardecced is insufficient, cryptic and written in in-game 'role-play' text. It should be clearer so they understand that highsec is not safe during the war (it never is, but it's considerably more dangerous) and direct them to out-of-client information explaining watchlisting, locator agents, combat probing and other tools that their attackers will be using.
As a predatory wardeccer myself, I can attest that new players that are competently led are scary to go up against.

5 - The ally system needs work. It's not generating conflict, it's instead seen as a way to get free wars. (If A wardecs B and you want to get a free war against A, you join B as an ally). I don't have the answers here.

6 - I'd endorse a unilateral surrender option that sees the defender party pay a surrender payment and (for the remaining duration of the present week of the war) pay a higher tax rate on bounties and (if possible) LP, that goes to the aggressor entity.

In exchange the war would be restricted to only one region of the aggressor's choice until it expired, and if it restarted within 28 days after expiring, it would remain restricted to one region.

This would allow corps that have tried to stand up for themselves some respite at a serious cost, while also allowing permanent strategic wars (e.g. "This icefield belongs to us, if you return we will crush you" or "You are undercutting us on Ishtars, we don't like this so we are cutting off your access to Jita, go sell in Amarr and leave *our* market alone", or "Nice POS location. We're taking it.").

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#99 - 2015-08-26 03:50:39 UTC
Oh and on highsec capitals.

I support combat capitals (dread/carrier) being able to enter and leave highsec through gates, but definitely want to keep the cynojammers in place and I think I support a ban on jumping combat capitals out of highsec. (Keep supers out. Death to all supers.)

More than anything else this is because Marauders are insanely OP in highsec wars without dreads to counter them, whereas dreadnoughts and carriers are vulnerable unless used in extreme numbers.

Highsec doesn't offer many objectives strategically significant enough to make it sensible to slowboat in a dreadnought or carrier and seriously commit it to combat without the option of an exit cyno. But players will find some, and just imagine the excitement if you are a new player flying around and you see a Forsaken Asylum capital fleet engaging a Marmite subcap fleet with two support carriers, all on a gate in Niarja.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2015-08-26 04:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
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...




This is the crux of the matter.

How do you make your average highsec corp willing to stand and fight against experienced pvp'ers with minimum 30-40M SP in subcaps, a network of anonymous alts for support, who can escalate up to faction BS/T3 + logi fleets if seriously challenged. Highsec wars are stupid, one-sided affairs, unless the aggressors choose to make them otherwise.

You have a small subset of players that are experienced and skilled at combat and the alt-centric meta-game, which is totally alien to new players, vs most of the rest of highsec that just has no idea why they're dying. I don't see what you can do to make "fight back" a viable choice.

I respect the effort and even the willingness to try and craft a platform that appeals to others beyond just the very small highsec pvp community, but I think highsec is more interested in electing people who are focused on things like industry.