These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#121 - 2015-08-27 14:51:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
After accepting such a unilateral surrender, the aggressor could not re-dec the defender for some period of time, but there is still the potential issue of aggressors jumping corp to abuse this against the same defender.


Which is why corp swapping would be limited. If they were a wardec corp, they'd likely be dropping under a dec and therefore penalized.




Yep this was my solution to this issue.

The reason I didn't advocate localized (single-region) wars as an option in my CSM run was out of fear that we would get them - at the expense of losing global wars.

Bronson, your suggestion of unilateral surrender options being written into stone in the original wardec is a good one, although the aggressor should be able to compromise after the fact. (For instance, the aggressor might say "Pay us 1200m and we will restrict this dec just to Sinq Laison", but then if the defender offers 750m for a total revocation of the war, the aggressor should be able to accept that weaker surrender offer if they desire.)

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

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#122 - 2015-08-27 15:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers.


I'm being completely serious here, but like the trade and negotiation system in Civilization. Half duplex, each side takes turns making offers until they are either accepted or one side walks away.


This is literally what I want.

One of my various problems with carebears is that they attest that they hate being at war but won't do anything whatsoever to end a war. In almost all cases diplomacy is initiated by the aggressor and is usually met with distrust or outright tinfoil-hattery (I like the time we were believed to be TEST alts) and rarely goes anywhere.

I want to be able to state in certain and public terms what acceptable terms of surrender are so that there is no ambiguity for the carebears to hide behind. I'd really like to be able to attach a message to the war declaration notification too.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#123 - 2015-08-27 18:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the main goal of this thread.
Somewhat of a :
1/ Hey, we may get another C+P dude running for the CSM (people here mentioned the Bacon and Aleks, but our younger C+Pers should learn that Psychotic Monk, the Pirate King, almost made it. Oh, and don't forget Darius III was on the CSM, too). Hello there.
2/ Propositions, mostly about highsec mechanisms. It is a good idea for a CSM to present a bit his views of the game, but do not forget : a CSM member is not a game designer. Half of your job is giving CCP a first-hand feedback.
3/ But here I can read some interesting answers, which is the second part of a CSM : relaying the feedbacks of the players to CCP. I'm delighted to see proper, constructive arguments here. Kudos to everyone.

Honestly, while I support this kind of initiative and Bronson seems to be a nice guy, I must tell that I feel that CCP won't do any highsec balancing for a while (2 to 3 years). Just last month, I found yet another loophole in this mess (this time, a way to be sure that your titan BPO that is sitting in a lab, inside a RFed tower, cannot be looted by the opponents once the tower becomes vulnerable again What? ).

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#124 - 2015-08-27 23:15:15 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the main goal of this thread.
Somewhat of a :
1/ Hey, we may get another C+P dude running for the CSM (people here mentioned the Bacon and Aleks, but our younger C+Pers should learn that Psychotic Monk, the Pirate King, almost made it. Oh, and don't forget Darius III was on the CSM, too). Hello there.
2/ Propositions, mostly about highsec mechanisms. It is a good idea for a CSM to present a bit his views of the game, but do not forget : a CSM member is not a game designer. Half of your job is giving CCP a first-hand feedback.
3/ But here I can read some interesting answers, which is the second part of a CSM : relaying the feedbacks of the players to CCP. I'm delighted to see proper, constructive arguments here. Kudos to everyone.

Honestly, while I support this kind of initiative and Bronson seems to be a nice guy, I must tell that I feel that CCP won't do any highsec balancing for a while (2 to 3 years). Just last month, I found yet another loophole in this mess (this time, a way to be sure that your titan BPO that is sitting in a lab, inside a RFed tower, cannot be looted by the opponents once the tower becomes vulnerable again What? ).

Shh most bears don't know about that

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#125 - 2015-08-28 00:35:53 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the main goal of this thread.
Somewhat of a :
...
2/ Propositions, mostly about highsec mechanisms. It is a good idea for a CSM to present a bit his views of the game, but do not forget : a CSM member is not a game designer. Half of your job is giving CCP a first-hand feedback.
3/ But here I can read some interesting answers, which is the second part of a CSM : relaying the feedbacks of the players to CCP. I'm delighted to see proper, constructive arguments here. Kudos to everyone.
...



Yes, the CSM election isn't a plebiscite on game mechanics, much less a referendum on them.

However quite a number of game mechanics in today's game have come from CSM feedback.

Probably most significant in the last couple of years was Mynnna's campaign for specific strategies to revitalize nullsec industry, some of which made it into the game verbatim (replacing drone poo with ISK, removing non-drone tech 1 loot from rat wrecks) and others which influenced the design of Crius.

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

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#126 - 2015-08-28 13:46:22 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
A unilateral surrender conceptually doesn't make sense. The entire point of surrendering is to capitulate to the aggressor in return for an end to violence. If the aggressor can't refuse, or can't determine the terms then it's not really a surrender at all.

The aggressor sets the terms of the unilateral surrender offer when they declare the war. As with all negotiations (even using bad mechanics), you should start off asking for more than you actually want (i.e. an offer you would likely never refuse if they accepted).

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers. For example on declaring war an aggressor should be able to establish an isk amount they will accept a surrender for and set the duration of the mandatory post-war peace period which the defender can accept at any time or make a counter offer to. In an ideal world it should also facilitate the transfer of structure ownership too.

I think that's pretty much what we were already talking about. The thread got a bit twisty though so that may not have been clear.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Keeping the war bill in escrow and returning it to the aggressor if the defender disbands or to the defender if the aggressor disbands (this does happen sometimes) would largely end the issue of people disbanding their corps and reforming them to evade wars.

I like this idea, but I hardly think that this by itself would prevent defenders from disbanding. They are going to great lengths to not fight, seeing ISK returned to their aggressor that was the aggressor's to begin with would hardly be motivation.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Also you can already request allies. The real issue with the ally system is that it's totally unilateral, the defender can escalate near infinitely for little cost and no mechanical consequence for either the defender or their allies which if you're a carebear sounds awesone, but in reality serves as a massive deterrent to conflict between legitimate rivals. It's my opinion that bringing in an ally should allow the aggressor to bring in one of their own for the same cost. This would make it undesirable to ally into a war you're not committed to just to get a free war and to facilitate super awesome widespread conflict in highsec.

I agree that the current ally system is lopsided. If the defenders bring in assistance, the aggressors get no such option; if they want help, their ally has to wardec the defender and all of the defender's allies. This imbalance deters aggressing corps known to "batphone" in allies.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Also anyone who wants continuously increasing costs for protracted wars is dumb. That would serve as an incentive to just sitting docked and waiting it out, because sooner or later your opponent won't be able to pay the bill. It's fundamentally an anti-gameplay concept.

The amount of scaling I'm thinking of is such that it would make wars lasting months or years more costly to maintain, but wars on the scale of several weeks wouldn't notice much, if any, difference. In other words, if you're trying to wait the aggressor out specifically to bleed them dry...you'd have to wait a really long time. The intent here was more to get aggressors to focus on achieving goals quickly to keep costs low while still leaving the option for a protracted war (which is sometimes the strategic goal) viable.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#127 - 2015-08-28 13:47:41 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Bronson, your suggestion of unilateral surrender options being written into stone in the original wardec is a good one, although the aggressor should be able to compromise after the fact. (For instance, the aggressor might say "Pay us 1200m and we will restrict this dec just to Sinq Laison", but then if the defender offers 750m for a total revocation of the war, the aggressor should be able to accept that weaker surrender offer if they desire.)

So long as the up-front unilateral surrender option is an addition to existing surrender mechanics instead of a replacement for them, they should be able to. Very good to clarify though.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#128 - 2015-08-28 14:10:54 UTC
Want to keep players in player corps and not NPC corps? Do this:

When in a NPC corp - 50% tax on LP, on top of the other standard taxes.

When in a Player corp - All LP earned in missions gets a 25% increase, but is paid to the corp and divided up at the end of the month or week to all members. Kinda like the ESS mechanic.

When a player corp is wardecced, no LP is paid out until the wardec is finished. If the corp is disbanded, the LP is lost.

Or something like that.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#129 - 2015-08-28 15:55:14 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
When in a Player corp - All LP earned in missions gets a 25% increase, but is paid to the corp and divided up at the end of the month or week to all members. Kinda like the ESS mechanic.

(Apologies if this seems "steam of consciousness", I'm thinking out loud here and my brain is currently dealing with the double whammy of sinus pressure and allergy meds. Urk.)

Let me twist this a little bit with something simpler. As the members of a corp earn LP for a corp/faction, the corp starts to gain a modifier that applies to LP/ISK rewards that corp/faction. The longer you're in the corp and gaining LP, the more LP corp members earn. However, if you leave the corp, that modifier doesn't come with you, and if the corp disbands the modifier goes away with the corp.

The problem with this is that one of my goals is to make it harder to earn ISK in hisec, not easier. If we just did this without adjusting anything else, more ISK and LP would be generated, not less.


Maybe instead of penalizing NPC corps directly, we nerf mission rewards across the board (say, X%, it doesn't have to be much) and then apply the modifier to player corps so that when the modifier is maxed it adds slightly more than X%. So if you stayed in your player corp long enough you could potentially earn more than you do now, but you'd have to work for it and stay vulnerable to wardecs. If you stay in an NPC corp or disband/reform your corp, you would earn less than you do now.

This would really only incentivize mission-running and FW player corps, but I think it would work with them. Maybe we could come up with similar modifiers for other corp activities? Want max ore refines? Do lots of refining in a player corp and you can get slightly higher than you can now. Want cheaper job costs? Install lots of jobs in a corp and they can get slightly cheaper than they are now. Trade costs? Contract fees? Heck, maybe even have a modifier for wardec fees so that the longer a merc corp exists and the more wars it fights, the lower its wardec fees get. (Folks here will love that one.)

Basically...have the corp be rewarded for corp member activity, but that reward stays only with the corp. As a corp matures over time and gains various modifiers, it could be a draw for new members...and a target on their back.

Forcing a corp to fold would actually mean something now.

Risk vs reward.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2015-08-28 17:55:24 UTC
When we are looking at social changes, we have to understand how to look it from all points of view from the given group and think how can it backfires from the wider range of aspects.

If you try to change the behavior of the players now using mechanics, you will have as possible outcomes the change of actions, the dismiss of actions, and after none of that is possible, the change of behavior.

On the wardec price, you take into consideration that alone, the wardec mechanics is only a concern in hisec, as in low sec and null you can circumvent or ignore its aspects easly. If wardeccing becomes too expensive, people will still doing griefplay, they will just change the tools for it, like replacing all out war with ganking and cheap shots.

The idea of having people to bully the defenseless is ever present, and anything you do but rulling it 100% illegal wont change it. And rulling it 100% illegal will rather damage the playerbase than solve any problems.

I think that EVE should be true to its nature and let players sort you what they want to do of the social interactions using the tools available. You cant actually force anyone to fight, nor force anyone to leave others alone, while remaining true to the principle of full player driven universe.

If you want to go around changing how players should play the game, you should rather drop the sandbox concept and start a Epic Hero taken by the hand questlines kind of mmo everyone else is.

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#131 - 2015-08-28 18:21:52 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:
The idea of having people to bully the defenseless is ever present


Wardecs aren't bullying.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2015-08-28 18:27:00 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
[...]

Basically...have the corp be rewarded for corp member activity, but that reward stays only with the corp. As a corp matures over time and gains various modifiers, it could be a draw for new members...and a target on their back.

Forcing a corp to fold would actually mean something now.

Risk vs reward.
This sounds like a great idea. Carrots are more fun than sticks.

I think it would also balance risk/reward for highsec incursions: if you want the best payouts, you have to be in a corp and expose yourself to wardecs.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2015-08-28 19:17:42 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Malt Zedong wrote:
The idea of having people to bully the defenseless is ever present


Wardecs aren't bullying.


Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say. BAW wardeccing another merc corp is not bullying. A experienced merc corp deccing every small newbro/mining/pve corp on the other hand...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#134 - 2015-08-28 19:19:41 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:

Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say.


It's not for them to say either. It's for CCP to say, and they have said repeatedly that it is not. Under any circumstances.

"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.

Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2015-08-28 19:26:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:

Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say.


It's not for them to say either. It's for CCP to say, and they have said repeatedly that it is not. Under any circumstances.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what you guys are doing is great, and creates content and a general spiff of life in high sec. But all of the problems you guys are discussing on this forum, seem to result from many small, pvp-weak corps feeling "bullied" by endless war decs they have little chance to fight successfully. Thus, they avoid them. Making them harder to avoid will make them hate pvp combat even more, which is counter to what you guys seem to be attempting to do.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#136 - 2015-08-28 19:31:04 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:

Perhaps not to you, but that's really for the ones receiving them to say.


It's not for them to say either. It's for CCP to say, and they have said repeatedly that it is not. Under any circumstances.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I think what you guys are doing is great, and creates content and a general spiff of life in high sec. But all of the problems you guys are discussing on this forum, seem to result from many small, pvp-weak corps feeling "bullied" by endless war decs they have little chance to fight successfully. Thus, they avoid them. Making them harder to avoid will make them hate pvp combat even more, which is counter to what you guys seem to be attempting to do.


The mistake you're making is assuming that those people enter into the thought process at all.

If they are not willing to fight in wars, they do not belong in player corps, period. The point of all of this is to improve the lives of people who are doing it right, and give them incentive to fight with one another, rather than handicapping the mechanic for the sake of those who frankly should not be participating in player corps to begin with.

"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
#137 - 2015-08-28 19:33:15 UTC
Yong Shin wrote:
BAW wardeccing another merc corp is not bullying. A experienced merc corp deccing every small newbro/mining/pve corp on the other hand...


... is not bullying. People need to grow a spine if they feel bullied by people using the mechanics of an internet game about asploding virtual spaceships against them.

Actual, honest-to-Bob, bullying is serious. It's also far less of a problem in the virtual world because of killfiles, or whatever the media buzzword for them is these days. You right click on the asshat and you click block.

A newbro corp shouldn't exist unless it's got competent leadership that not only has a passion for herding cats, but also for teaching and they need to know the facts from the myths from the malicious lies. We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#138 - 2015-08-28 19:34:48 UTC
admiral root wrote:
We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea.


And since CCP sucks at education, the solution is to raise the barrier to entry for player corps, in both skill points and cost.

"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
#139 - 2015-08-28 19:37:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea.


And since CCP sucks at education, the solution is to raise the barrier to entry for player corps, in both skill points and cost.


Or leave the barrier where it is and make a graphic example out of some of these corps from time to time? I dunno. Sometimes I think we should just have a CTA across the whole of the New Order, and invite all our "sociopath" friends, and camp out the newbie help channel for an entire month, verbally ganking anyone who gives bad / wrong advice. We could even hunt the offenders down in space, too.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Yong Shin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2015-08-28 19:38:03 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Yong Shin wrote:
BAW wardeccing another merc corp is not bullying. A experienced merc corp deccing every small newbro/mining/pve corp on the other hand...


... is not bullying. People need to grow a spine if they feel bullied by people using the mechanics of an internet game about asploding virtual spaceships against them.

Actual, honest-to-Bob, bullying is serious. It's also far less of a problem in the virtual world because of killfiles, or whatever the media buzzword for them is these days. You right click on the asshat and you click block.

A newbro corp shouldn't exist unless it's got competent leadership that not only has a passion for herding cats, but also for teaching and they need to know the facts from the myths from the malicious lies. We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea.


Point taken, but I didn't mean bullying as in "omg I'm genuinely depressed because people are hurting my feelings and making me miserable." Maybe not in terms of newbro corps, but say me and a dozen other CAS members who have been playing for a year or two decide to make a small corp. BAW wardecs us. I'm all for trying my hand at pvp, but I'd have to be stupid to think we have even the slightest chance of achieving anything meaningful. The logical (albeit cowardly) thing to do would simply drop corp, or hide in order to save my ships and assets from meaningless death. If war dec mechanics gave me some kind of direct tactical combat advantage to compensate for our lack of size, however, I would certainly love to try defending my new corp, especially if some of the incentives mentioned in this thread exist.