These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Limit the amount of active War Decs for Alliances and Corps

Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2016-12-12 06:28:34 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:


The ONLY difference between the two is the "official" nature of it. That is it.

No... seriously... that is literally it.

Live chat is not the only form of communication you can do with a corp. There is also corp mail, calendar, and corporate standings and even contracting to some extent.

Why are you so against indy folks being able to use corporations?
I am not sure why of all the things wrong with wars and corporations, you are fixated on a few, dispensable, in-game communication methods. The in-game calendar doesn't win wars, or even make a successful industry corporation.

If you want to argue for more social tools for players not looking to seriously play the game, then I support you. Social corps or the 'societies' proposal seem reasonable ideas for non-competitive players to benefit socially from the game. But using access to a chat channel or calendar as an argument why industrial corporations should be immune from wars is inane.

Industry corporations are not suppose to exists. Ok, this is a sandbox and you can do whatever you want, but there is no in-game mechanic to declare your corporation as "industrial" and thus opt-out of wars. All corporations are competitive, in fact they are the basic competitive unit of the game. You are intended to be vulnerable and have to plan for your defense, just like the "purely PvP" corporation (also which is not explicitly provided for by the rules) has to worry about funding themselves somehow, whether that be missioning, mining, or as mercenary group.

If you want to benefit from the shared economy that gives value to your industry, you have to navigate being vulnerable to the other players who want to compete with you or consume you as content. That's the game. No one promised you a carebear paradise, single-player experience where you can grind resources without risk. Eve Online is a virtual world where everyone is competing against everyone on multiple levels simultaneously.


Or...as previously noted, a PvP ecosystem. You need to develop strategies to survive, if you cannot you will go extinct.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#62 - 2016-12-12 06:33:51 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:


The ONLY difference between the two is the "official" nature of it. That is it.

No... seriously... that is literally it.

Live chat is not the only form of communication you can do with a corp. There is also corp mail, calendar, and corporate standings and even contracting to some extent.

Why are you so against indy folks being able to use corporations?


he isn't, in fact he is one of the few people who gives honest and best advice to newbros in how to survive and enjoy this game.

and i agree with him, leadership is what makes a corp., no amount of mechanics can save your corp if your leaders are dumb.


Confirming on both counts.
Jonah gets to have his corp unmolested because hes not a dumbass , is a likeable and patient mofo with the newbros.

also introducing mechanics to alleviate wars always works both ways.
who do you think will optimise for this,
a) the lads that just want to be left alone by the big meeny bastard faced sociopaths and get on with puttering around
or
b) the big meeny bastard faced sociopaths that have a structure built for war ,and been at war for (literally) years

add more restrictions and we will just further entrench, further hone the game-play and
further the gulf between every other corp and one dedicated to war.
Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2016-12-12 18:04:51 UTC
Hi sec wars are broken. If your corp is too small, a long term war will destroy it. If your corp is too big or in an alliance you're at war perpetually. It's getting where half my other mains corp industry players either don't log on anymore or just play out of corp alts. Additionally you need multiple characters to be able to go anywhere or do anything when you're dec'ed by multiple merc corps - which is why my higher level sp main here is in a npc corp.

So what are the options? You can stay in high sec and probably have your corp fizzle out and close. You can claw your way into a null sec alliance, but then you get effectively cut off from high sec and null is incredibly restrictive and boring. You can be a WH corp, but that too is a logistical nightmare and bad for industry players. Low sec is fun for small gang pvp, but again not ideal for industry. Industry players just don't have a place in the game unless they want to play the game like a single player game.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#64 - 2016-12-12 18:09:08 UTC
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot or I may have been a bit unclear with my follow-up concerns.

Highsec indy corps with any notoriety are at a disadvantage when using CCP provided tools for corp management.
^ that much we seem to agree on. I don't think anyone would recommend a corp like red frog use corps in the traditional sense.
Of course, many are recommending alternatives to the corp tools.

My question is: what is the justification in sustaining this disadvantage of in-game corp management tools?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2016-12-12 18:43:44 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:

So what are the options? You can stay in high sec and probably have your corp fizzle out and close. You can claw your way into a null sec alliance, but then you get effectively cut off from high sec and null is incredibly restrictive and boring. You can be a WH corp, but that too is a logistical nightmare and bad for industry players. Low sec is fun for small gang pvp, but again not ideal for industry. Industry players just don't have a place in the game unless they want to play the game like a single player game.



Nullsec industry player here. I'd just like to say that you're wrong and should be ashamed of how wrong you are.

@op, have you maybe tried, if growing a backbone and fighting back is too hard, if hiding is too hard, chat channels and mailing lists are too hard (seriously, does ANYONE actually use the in game calender?), actual leadership is too hard and moving out of highsec is too scary, playing another game?
Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2016-12-12 18:59:56 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:

So what are the options? You can stay in high sec and probably have your corp fizzle out and close. You can claw your way into a null sec alliance, but then you get effectively cut off from high sec and null is incredibly restrictive and boring. You can be a WH corp, but that too is a logistical nightmare and bad for industry players. Low sec is fun for small gang pvp, but again not ideal for industry. Industry players just don't have a place in the game unless they want to play the game like a single player game.



Nullsec industry player here. I'd just like to say that you're wrong and should be ashamed of how wrong you are.

@op, have you maybe tried, if growing a backbone and fighting back is too hard, if hiding is too hard, chat channels and mailing lists are too hard (seriously, does ANYONE actually use the in game calender?), actual leadership is too hard and moving out of highsec is too scary, playing another game?


Lol. Which part should I be ashamed of? That null is boring? Restrictive? I've moved into null on three separate occasions and every single time I've taken a break from the game shortly afterward. I suppose it could be safer than highsec for industry players, but isn't that concept a little ridiculous?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#67 - 2016-12-12 19:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Confirming on both counts.
Jonah gets to have his corp unmolested because hes not a dumbass , is a likeable and patient mofo with the newbros.
TBH I think that Nat was aiming his comment at ShahFluffers, but I'll take the compliment anyway Big smile

chaosgrimm wrote:
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot or I may have been a bit unclear with my follow-up concerns.

Highsec indy corps with any notoriety are at a disadvantage when using CCP provided tools for corp management.
^ that much we seem to agree on. I don't think anyone would recommend a corp like red frog use corps in the traditional sense.
Of course, many are recommending alternatives to the corp tools.

My question is: what is the justification in sustaining this disadvantage of in-game corp management tools?
The corp management tools are universal, everybody gets the exact same tools.

With that in mind, please explain how having access to the exact same tools as everybody else is a disadvantage for an industry corp?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2016-12-12 19:19:01 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:
I suppose it could be safer than highsec for industry players, but isn't that concept a little ridiculous?


No. In NS what do you have? Groups of players that work together and have built up the infrastructure to do so. Further, for them shooting other players is considered fun.

In HS that kind of cooperation in a corporation tends to be, in my experience, very rare. Further, many of those players are extremely reluctant to engage in direct ship-to-ship PvP.

So, no, it is not ridiculous.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#69 - 2016-12-12 19:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
chaosgrimm wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:


The ONLY difference between the two is the "official" nature of it. That is it.

No... seriously... that is literally it.

Live chat is not the only form of communication you can do with a corp. There is also corp mail, calendar, and corporate standings and even contracting to some extent.

Why are you so against indy folks being able to use corporations?


Most in-game communications channels are pretty much toys as far as actual communication is concerned.

Organized groups are generally using out-of-game tools for everything of importance.

Voicecomms? TS/Discord/Mumble
Pings? Discord/Jabber
Text comms? Slack/Discord
Other misc ****? Alliance forums, etc.

In-game corp and alliance channels are pretty much just general chatter. All of the in-game comm channels I use for anything of import are, in fact, multi-organizational. Regional/coalition intel channels, Spectre Fleet, Hauler's Channel, etc.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2016-12-12 19:23:05 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot or I may have been a bit unclear with my follow-up concerns.

Highsec indy corps with any notoriety are at a disadvantage when using CCP provided tools for corp management.
^ that much we seem to agree on. I don't think anyone would recommend a corp like red frog use corps in the traditional sense.
Of course, many are recommending alternatives to the corp tools.

My question is: what is the justification in sustaining this disadvantage of in-game corp management tools?


Wait, what disadvantage?

You have indy corp XYZ. And you have war dec corp ABC. Are you telling us that XYZ has different and inferior tools for corporation management provided by CCP? Or do they have the same set of tools?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#71 - 2016-12-12 19:40:38 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:

I suppose it could be safer than highsec for industry players, but isn't that concept a little ridiculous?



It would be ridiculous if it were inherently safer. It's not inherently safer. With respect to game mechanics alone, it's dramatically more dangerous.


It's safer, in practice, because groups of players are cooperating to make it that way.

They have intel channels that report incoming hostiles, home defense fleets that form up to deal with said hostiles, etc.

Employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null and you would be damn near untouchable in high sec.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#72 - 2016-12-12 19:53:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot or I may have been a bit unclear with my follow-up concerns.

Highsec indy corps with any notoriety are at a disadvantage when using CCP provided tools for corp management.
^ that much we seem to agree on. I don't think anyone would recommend a corp like red frog use corps in the traditional sense.
Of course, many are recommending alternatives to the corp tools.

My question is: what is the justification in sustaining this disadvantage of in-game corp management tools?


Wait, what disadvantage?

You have indy corp XYZ. And you have war dec corp ABC. Are you telling us that XYZ has different and inferior tools for corporation management provided by CCP? Or do they have the same set of tools?



I get what you're saying, but you need to get what they are saying. If I gave you my whole set of tools then expected you to be as awesome as me, that just wouldn't be fair. Here's why. We're different people (corps) with different likes and dislikes. You may be able to bend down under a sink, squoooosh out 9 inches of plumbers crack and be a master, but if I set you at the kitchen table with a 3 layer circuit board and some electronics repair stuff - you may burn my house down. The point?? Just because we have access to the same set of tools does not mean we are automatically equally good at using all of them. Heck you may be SCARED of electricity and never be able to get the hang of that facet of the tool box. That's OK.

You're kind of implying that because we have access to the same tools - we should all be good at pvp. Heck 80% of the Eve players I've met that claim to be PVP folks suck at it (and I mean really bad suck at it). So this whole same set of tools thing you're throwing out there is pretty much garbage. I don't know how anyone could stick with Eve for more than a year and not be hooked on pvp, but it happens and that has to be accepted.

Let me ask you this... If you don't like kissing dudes/girls/Labradors - do you think you'll ever be good at it? Probably not. But we all have equal access to dudes/girls/Labradors so????

TL/DR stop being silly
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2016-12-12 20:00:28 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You're kind of implying that because we have access to the same tools - we should all be good at pvp. Heck 80% of the Eve players I've met that claim to be PVP folks suck at it (and I mean really bad suck at it). So this whole same set of tools thing you're throwing out there is pretty much garbage. I don't know how anyone could stick with Eve for more than a year and not be hooked on pvp, but it happens and that has to be accepted.


No, and yes. No, I am not making any such suggestion. Yes, the differences in people are what matter here and as such you cannot fix that via mechanics changes.

It is just that simple and not at all silly.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#74 - 2016-12-12 20:03:53 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
As an aside, my experience in a typical highsec "industrial" corp large enough to be subjected to constant war decs.

Day 1. Discover that most of the "industrialists" are miners who reckon that the minerals they mine are free. Oh, boy.
Day 2. Log in to see rage in corp chat about getting killed by war deccers on the Amarr undock. You undocked from Amarr in a war? And didn't use an insta?

"What's an insta?"

Oh, dear. Duplicate personal undock bookmarks for the corp. Explain to everyone how to use them.

Day 3. Log in to see rage in corp chat about getting killed by war deccers on the Amarr undock.
Day 4. An additional war dec comes in. One guy. One day old character. Bad opsec. Identify alts, explain situation to corp mates.
Day 5. Log in to see rage in corp chat about Covetor getting killed by a two day old character in a Thrasher. Attempt to get someone to undock a procurer to bait. Not a chance. Sigh audibly, fit battle-nereus, do my own baiting, kill war target. See? Easy.
Day 6. Log in to see rage in corp chat about Covetor getting killed by three day old character in a Thrasher.

There was not a single thing this guy could have done against a tanked procurer. Even THAT was asking too much.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2016-12-12 20:09:52 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:

I suppose it could be safer than highsec for industry players, but isn't that concept a little ridiculous?



It would be ridiculous if it were inherently safer. It's not inherently safer. With respect to game mechanics alone, it's dramatically more dangerous.


It's safer, in practice, because groups of players are cooperating to make it that way.

They have intel channels that report incoming hostiles, home defense fleets that form up to deal with said hostiles, etc.

Employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null and you would be damn near untouchable in high sec.


If high sec corps could employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null... they wouldn't be high sec corps. You're kind of helping prove my point.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#76 - 2016-12-12 20:12:43 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:


If high sec corps could employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null... they wouldn't be high sec corps. You're kind of helping prove my point.


Explain what is so special about null sec that an intel channel is only possible there.

There's absolutely nothing mechanically special about null sec that enables the actions taken to keep it safe. It is purely a function of organization and teamwork.

It sounds like you want "high sec" to mean, "Safe to be AFK forever space," and that just isn't what it's for.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2016-12-12 20:13:06 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:

I suppose it could be safer than highsec for industry players, but isn't that concept a little ridiculous?



It would be ridiculous if it were inherently safer. It's not inherently safer. With respect to game mechanics alone, it's dramatically more dangerous.


It's safer, in practice, because groups of players are cooperating to make it that way.

They have intel channels that report incoming hostiles, home defense fleets that form up to deal with said hostiles, etc.

Employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null and you would be damn near untouchable in high sec.


If high sec corps could employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null... they wouldn't be high sec corps.


Right.

Your next statement should have been, "Why aren't they employing those measures?" not a snide comment.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#78 - 2016-12-12 20:29:51 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:


If high sec corps could employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null... they wouldn't be high sec corps. You're kind of helping prove my point.


Specifically what methods and why can't high sec corps use them?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#79 - 2016-12-12 21:49:39 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot or I may have been a bit unclear with my follow-up concerns.

Highsec indy corps with any notoriety are at a disadvantage when using CCP provided tools for corp management.
^ that much we seem to agree on. I don't think anyone would recommend a corp like red frog use corps in the traditional sense.
Of course, many are recommending alternatives to the corp tools.

My question is: what is the justification in sustaining this disadvantage of in-game corp management tools?


Wait, what disadvantage?

You have indy corp XYZ. And you have war dec corp ABC. Are you telling us that XYZ has different and inferior tools for corporation management provided by CCP? Or do they have the same set of tools?



I get what you're saying, but you need to get what they are saying. If I gave you my whole set of tools then expected you to be as awesome as me, that just wouldn't be fair. Here's why. We're different people (corps) with different likes and dislikes. You may be able to bend down under a sink, squoooosh out 9 inches of plumbers crack and be a master, but if I set you at the kitchen table with a 3 layer circuit board and some electronics repair stuff - you may burn my house down. The point?? Just because we have access to the same set of tools does not mean we are automatically equally good at using all of them. Heck you may be SCARED of electricity and never be able to get the hang of that facet of the tool box. That's OK.

You're kind of implying that because we have access to the same tools - we should all be good at pvp. Heck 80% of the Eve players I've met that claim to be PVP folks suck at it (and I mean really bad suck at it). So this whole same set of tools thing you're throwing out there is pretty much garbage. I don't know how anyone could stick with Eve for more than a year and not be hooked on pvp, but it happens and that has to be accepted.

Let me ask you this... If you don't like kissing dudes/girls/Labradors - do you think you'll ever be good at it? Probably not. But we all have equal access to dudes/girls/Labradors so????

TL/DR stop being silly

Well this is sort of the point I was making earlier about the gulf between dedicated corps and the average.
Excuse me while I hijack your metaphor a minute.
This isn't directed at you nowBlink

It's one thing to ask a novice to fix a thing without killing himself or anyone else in the room,
it's another entirely to expect him to have to do it in a competitive environment
and to the level that would pass an independent peer review or be beaten , mocked and ostracised.

In a room where his peers are as able bodied as he and the expectation is not die there's room to breathe,
him simply having a pulse at the end of the endeavour is fine but that's not where we are now.

Right now there's a room full of teams of professional electricians with the exact skillset and years of experience for the task leering at one another with thinly veiled malice
and one very self aware plumber trying to make himself melt into the Wall.
I for one don't think it's necessary to accentuate this further because we will adapt and optimise the scenario,
The people this is supposed to be for won't.

We need an environment where being on the
[not guaranteed to kill himself]--------------------to-------------------[slightly less competent group] portion of the scale is viable

If we can do that then we can start breaking down the vgm's and the pirats and the parts that fall off can go about and do their thing without being compelled to form up again because those guys are the ones you can beat without serious leadership or experience.

We have a problem , few would dispute that, however we need to address the problem.

Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2016-12-12 21:59:20 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:


If high sec corps could employ even a fraction of the defensive measures used in null... they wouldn't be high sec corps. You're kind of helping prove my point.


Specifically what methods and why can't high sec corps use them?


Numbers primarily. Coordination, skill points, pvp experience, and in the case of many industry players, combat skills of any kind also play a significant role in the disadvantages many players have going up against the sheer size, experience and resources these blanket war decers have..

I'm kind of confused why so many people seem to think the current war dec system is fine? Marmite has like 127 active wars lol. I would think if even 1/4 of those corps even put up half a fight, they wouldn't need to dec another 90 corps and alliances.

My corp just joined a new alliance last week and over the last weekend we've picked up an additional 4 wars including Ish-Stars, Marmite, and Vendetta.