These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Dec Ideas for 2012
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
McOboe
Viscosity
#41 - 2012-01-02 01:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: McOboe
I agree with Endeavour's postings. My opinions on the whole war-dec process have evolved. If folks do not want to fight in a war, they WILL find ways around war-decs- whether that is running, turtle-ing, corp-hopping or dec-shielding. There is no point in trying to force them, so just stop trying.

Let's see if can capture the biggest legitimate beef about NOT being to declare wars: 1.) I can't freely target competitors. Ok, sure, valid reason. And, that's about it. If that's the case, then let's take all of the worth-while minerals out of high-sec. Let's also remove the ability put up POSes in high-sec. Ganking will still continue in high-sec as per normal, with the standard CONCORD response. In return, we scrap the entire war-dec system. Sound cool? Your competitors lose something, and so do you.

If I've missed something, please enlighten me. I think this system makes it riskier to make ISK, by putting the resources and POS factories into constant conflict.

EDIT: In lieu of killing all war-decs though, I'd still prefer to see a Corp "lite" construct, in which players can assemble/gather for social and educational benefit. I feel that if you own a POS, that you should have to defend it. The same goes for sovereignty. But I would like to see the creation of a formal social group that is unable to make POSes or claim space, is still required to pay NPC taxes, but can name themselves, have a wallet, and Corp hangars at the NPC corp station under which they are a subsidiary.
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
#42 - 2012-01-02 01:38:59 UTC
Why not have a NPC alliance that player Corps can join. It requires a minimum Sec status and basically means that if you war dec that Corp the whole Alliance is war dec'd too.

Add tax so CCP have another ISK sink.
Endeavour Starfleet
#43 - 2012-01-02 01:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
I personally read that as changes to faction warfare that have been needed for years now but if CCP does plan on working on the wardec system that could be the time to make the topic fully fleshing my idea for wardecing.

Yet I just don't see that as a priority over things FAR MORE important such as FW changes and the badly needed modular POS and corp management systems.

Edit: The POS issue I am divided on. If a corp needs an "upgrade" to wardecable in order to have one up I think that could be interesting. Yet there are so many other things that badly need attention first.
McOboe
Viscosity
#44 - 2012-01-02 02:30:09 UTC
FlinchingNinja,

My plan basically involved the creation subsidiaries to NPC corps, that were owned an run by players. They'd still have to pay that 11% tax, basically as a fee due to their un-war-decable status. Additionally, POS ownership would be denied to these subsidiaries. I could see newbie training Corps such as EVE University jumping into something like this. A place where people can socialize, learn, and cooperate, but without the major benefits of Corp ownership- owning POSes and sovereignty. Still, they'd be vulnerable to ganking just like anyone else. A flaw that I see in what you are suggesting is that it could be either A.) used as another war-dec shield under the current system, or B.) die off from frequent war-decs against it.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-01-02 03:23:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
I think when you join a corp and leave during a dec there should be a 30 day timer before you can rejoin another player run corporation. Perhaps an individual or a CEO on behalf of its members can sign a surrender notice with a winner decided price tag to buy a surrender without penalty. This absurd notion EVE is supposed to be made easier and more emo friendly (I chuckle when I read the were gonna quit arguments) is hillarious.

EVE started with grief and harsh consequences and it's became a success with that formula. The fraud that all of the emo-players are what keeps the subs up and running and should they quit it'll be the poor house is insanity.

It's the reverse. If you don't fix the broken dec shielding and make war have consequence the real EVE players are going to leave. And they are the majority.

Simply put, to hell with the softcores, they don't add anything to the game but saturated markets and the incessant, incrementalist, pacifistic changes to EVEs brutal and cold core.

HTFU.
McOboe
Viscosity
#46 - 2012-01-02 03:30:40 UTC
Caliph Muhammed,

I like the timer idea as well. It's like quiting a job and then signing on for another company- you have to fulfill a contracted period of time with the NPC corp before you can re-join a player corp. I'm all for the equivalent of a "ransom", or war reparations as well. I would think it'd either be based on SP totals (newbies with low-cash would be spared; while players with higher SPs should know better anyway) for individuals, and a combined SP total for a corp. But there would have to be a system to prevent repeat war-decs and the like, and war-decs should be a great deal more expensive to declare against larger organizations.
Endeavour Starfleet
#47 - 2012-01-02 03:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Um no or how about a hell no to that idea.

Penalizing players because they don't want to stay for the gank fest? wth...... Completely against the idea of grouping together.

BTW real players leaving? Or bitter vets? EVE is doing fine with the current ability to have Dec shields. I would keep the current system for a decade than see the idea that players who want to go to an alt corp (To keep playing with their buddies instead of having to keep a mountain of contacts) penalized for the pleasure of the many grief corps.

The idea is to get newbies into corps not scare them away with penalties for leaving said corps. Or forcing them to fight. Said newbies might stay in EVE then and that means more funds for development.


I am starting to see why CCP decided to allow dec shielding. It is almost unwinable a battle with people saying stuff like penalties for leaving corp and war deccing individuals.
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
#48 - 2012-01-02 03:53:43 UTC  |  Edited by: FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
@ McOboe,

I don't agree with any mechanic that makes them invulnerable. What I propose is a system to encourage them to work together. The basic issue I see with High Sec corps and all the High Sec PVP action is that 1 group want easy kills and the other don't want to be killed.

I don't understand why it is hard to organize an Alliance between these High Sec corps and use this as a basis for defense.

That is the answer to war decs.... fight back.

Edit - Jeez the European mind set is corrupting me.... ¬_¬
Endeavour Starfleet
#49 - 2012-01-02 04:00:00 UTC
While I would examine the idea further before accepting it. What is wrong with a system to allow better grouping without having to worry about someone wardecing your because your avatar looked funny?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#50 - 2012-01-02 04:03:13 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
While I would examine the idea further before accepting it. What is wrong with a system to allow better grouping without having to worry about someone wardecing your because your avatar looked funny?


That's called NPC corps + Contacts lists. +10 standings even lets you share jetcans.

The organizational tool called the corporation has benefits and costs. The main 2 costs are the risk of Awoxing and the risk of incoming Wardecs.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
#51 - 2012-01-02 04:06:24 UTC
Still confused while people moan about getting bullied when they can fight back. At least try, seriously is it that hard? You lose your stuff if you don't you might not if you do.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-01-02 07:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Um no or how about a hell no to that idea.

Penalizing players because they don't want to stay for the gank fest? wth...... Completely against the idea of grouping together.

BTW real players leaving? Or bitter vets? EVE is doing fine with the current ability to have Dec shields. I would keep the current system for a decade than see the idea that players who want to go to an alt corp (To keep playing with their buddies instead of having to keep a mountain of contacts) penalized for the pleasure of the many grief corps.

The idea is to get newbies into corps not scare them away with penalties for leaving said corps. Or forcing them to fight. Said newbies might stay in EVE then and that means more funds for development.


I am starting to see why CCP decided to allow dec shielding. It is almost unwinable a battle with people saying stuff like penalties for leaving corp and war deccing individuals.


Okay now you're trolling. Dec Shield or not if I want to hunt someone down it wouldn't stop me for a second. Ill dec the alliance that runs the DecShield, the scrub corp that hides in it and if that fails i'll pick one target in that corp and suicide gank him until he quits the corporation he's in. Rinse and repeat.

Alts are irrelevant. Anyone can make them and troll the most polar opposite of the games design and pretend to be defending an issue from that viewpoint.

If you really are as mentally soft as you portray yourself, i'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening this year when the new war decs are hashed out.

And since we like throwing out people quitting when they don't get their way. Heed this. Ive spent 220 or so this month between subs and plex, i'll be spending at least another 120 this month and likely every month into the future. Eve is my entertainment and I have money to burn. So I believe that translates into 13 or so paid accounts by hook or crook. How about you?

If the game doesn't depart from this softcore coddling direction I won't be spending a penny more than my base sub. Whats the point of buying billions if i'm going to use it to declare and fund wars only to never be able to engage my targets?


********

1/1/2012 4:36:04 PM

CreditCard

Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription

$14.95

Paid



********

12/31/2011 1:50:17 AM

CreditCard

1 x 6 PLEX - Special offer

$99.99

Paid



********

12/18/2011 8:40:26 AM

CreditCard

1 x 6x 30 Day Pilot License Extension

$104.97

Paid



********

12/12/2011 10:30:28 PM


1 x Holiday present 2011: Neural Surgery

Free

Paid



********

12/2/2011 4:35:55 PM

CreditCard

Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription

$14.95

Paid
ShipToaster
#53 - 2012-01-02 09:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ShipToaster
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
If you don't want to accept that the old system doing doing nothing to help CCP in the long run have at it. It was discouraging group play, driving people from the game, and encouraging crap that ruined the perception of the game. and CCP agreed thus allowed dec shielding.


Please post your official CCP source for this statement.

A minor edit: read this and the following post if you want the harsh EVE arguments summarised as arguing against the same repeated points is tedious https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=587842#post587842 and if the forum is broke for you it is post 457 and 458.

.
Endeavour Starfleet
#54 - 2012-01-02 13:25:11 UTC
If I believed every "I HAZ 24783459 ACCOUNTS AND I QUItz iF CCP buffs concord, allows dec shielding, dosent remove local, etc..." I would believe that EVE would be dead by now. In other words Caliph I don't believe your statement at all.

Oh and again http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules Also please read this
Endeavour Starfleet
#55 - 2012-01-02 13:32:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
While I would examine the idea further before accepting it. What is wrong with a system to allow better grouping without having to worry about someone wardecing your because your avatar looked funny?


That's called NPC corps + Contacts lists. +10 standings even lets you share jetcans.

The organizational tool called the corporation has benefits and costs. The main 2 costs are the risk of Awoxing and the risk of incoming Wardecs.


The benefits of tax income, corp buys and sells, and POS owning are not very relevant to small grouping corps that are often the targets for griefers.

Subjecting players to wardec after wardec because they want to call them selves "corp A" when they own no POS and make so little tax income that it dosent really matter isn't helping anything. That leads to the current broken system of alt corps.

If it is warfare over the POS modules I can see where that leads to needed PVP. Yet that is about it. If you are desperate for a kill there is always the expensive hisec gank. Or lowsec... Or NPC nullsec where you can find PVP at the drop of a hat.
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#56 - 2012-01-02 14:02:34 UTC
Except Endeavour this is pvp game and pvp isnt discouraged. Dont like it? Dont play it!
Endeavour Starfleet
#57 - 2012-01-02 14:11:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Nestara Aldent wrote:
Except Endeavour this is pvp game and pvp isnt discouraged. Dont like it? Dont play it!


CONCORD?

The issue is that grouping is discouraged unless you are some megacorp that can afford to fight back and the troll mercs if you happen to defeat the guys who wardeced you.

For small guys this in not winnable. And for noobs this can mean they leave before they even really begin. That system is broken

And you can always gank. It is just that it is expensive and I am sure the many grief corps would like to keep things cheap thus want the old way back.

I wondering why the opposition to basically contact lists with a public name. At the very least it would slow the mess of alt corps out there.
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#58 - 2012-01-02 14:16:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nestara Aldent
Forum ate my post!

Grouping and joining a corp isn't automatically a good idea in this game.

Why? CEO can take your stuff from the corp hangar and kick you out. Or your corpmates can gank you. You fleet with somebody and he ganks you. And that's not going away unless CCP wants to neuter the game.

This is the only game in which you can actually play as a bad guy, and really feel like bad guy while playing. No other game comes close. Many like that sandbox and thus play this game instead of overhyped new MMOs.

Who plays AoC or Lotro? Nobody. But this game still has new subscribers and does well despite age and lack of hype that would instantly bury any themepark because of pvp and unique gameplay.

And you want to ruin it? You know instead of the game and everybody else who plays adapting to your view how the game should be maybe its better you to unsub and play some themepark mmo?

And yes there's Concord. But Concord don't prevent pvp.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#59 - 2012-01-02 14:31:21 UTC
When someone from EVE university is arguing against you in favour of highsec wars it's time to admit that your position might be wrong.
Endeavour Starfleet
#60 - 2012-01-02 14:57:53 UTC
Do a check in game. They have decs out the rear end right now. If that is their thing so be it. I still believe it is not a good thing for small groups to be forced into the wardec mechanic and thankfully that currently is not possible.

EVE is doing fine with the ability to go to an alt corp or dec shield when a griefer corp wants to tangle. If you want assured PVP you can gank or you can go down to NPC nullsec. There is an insane amount of PVP potential there.