These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Alekseyev Karrde for CSM7: War and Sov that Works for Everyone

Author
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#61 - 2012-02-23 22:05:00 UTC
since this is first canditate i truly believe has some clue i'd like to ask

what's your view about solo/small gang and general game mechanicss like, just to mention few i didn't see yet covered here:
- jump bridges, titan bridges and cynosural suprises at mindlessly random targets
- gang links and logistics etc. remote boosting, i personally believe they don't scale well for small gang warfare at all and harm it to great extent.

also since we're at it how do you think like 0.0 and low sec could change so more casual players and smaller groups could actually do something meaningful to remember?

then there's these WH's which seem out of reach for anyone not hardcore alt user to have probe alt this and that and alt this and that sitting in WH while combat pilot does other stuff elsewhere. Could they be more friendly to casual players?

What do you think of this eve online alt this and that can't do that without 10 alts and more alts??? I personally find it irritating that if you want to do something effectively or at all you need like scout alts (notice not only 1) and at least one cyno alt to even move your capital ship etc. It probably suits ccp but is it really good thing when looking at distant future?





Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#62 - 2012-02-24 06:36:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Response ot Laechyd Eldgorn and also bounty hunting!

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#63 - 2012-02-24 08:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Alek takes on Kelduum's Revised War Ideas tl;dr i win.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#64 - 2012-02-25 03:09:40 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

I've registered for your site (surprised I haven't done it before, actually) but can't see a way to actually comment on the blog post, so I'll reply here.

You seem to have taken the numbered points, each as option, when they actually are interlinked, specifically numbers 3, 4 and 5:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
1. Reduce war to one day rather than one week by default, adjust costs appropriately and use automatic billing to keep it paid if you want it.
2. Change 'mutual' wars to generate 0 ISK bills rather than remove the existing bill.
3. Allow corps to declare war immediately, and declare as many wars as they want, rather than the current three.
4. Reduce war unpaid/retracted cooldown to one hour, leave 'left alliance' at 24 hours.
5. Allow an attacker to 're-start' a war in cooldown simply be declaring again. Cooldown is cancelled and war continues as before.


The reply on your blog suggests that you have considered each of these would be singular, and as such would still leave the 'alliance hopping' loophole (going as far as to call it a 'massive misstep', complete with bold, underline and italics), where in fact they work together those close the loopholes, and allow someone to continue prosecuting their war to continue it in the event someone leaves an alliance.

You have to look at why the warmup and cooldowns exist as they are the moment - the warmup is there simply so that a defender prepare themselves (so you don't just log in that evening and find that you're under attack with no warning), and the current '1 week billing' means that the actual war is actually offset by 24 hours from the declaration.

The other problem is that war in cooldown is still considered to be a live war - this doesnt make much sense until you realise that the 'cooldown' is due to the 24 hour offset from the warmup, so you (in effect) already have a war.

Here's a quick timeline with an example f the changes above, which should be a bit clearer:
2012.06.01 00:00 - Attacker Corp declares war on Defender Alliance. 24 hour warmup begins.
2012.06.02 00:00 - War goes live. First bill due in 24 hours.
2012.06.02 12:00 - Attacker reduces Defender Alliance's POS to reinforced mode. 36 hour reinforced timer begins.
2012.06.02 13:00 - POS holding Defender Corp leaves alliance. 24 hour cooldown beings.
2012.06.02 22:00 - Attacker logs back in, declares new war against the Defender Corp. Cooldown cancelled and war continues.
2012.06.03 00:00 - Attacker bill for Defender Alliance unpaid, 1 hour cooldown beings. Defender Corp still at war.
2012.06.03 01:00 - War with Defender Alliance ends.
2012.06.04 00:00 - Defender Corp POS out of reinforced. No alliance mates to help defend now, fall down go boom.

No alliance hopping could save it, and even if there was any hopping, it only requires the attacker to warp-up a war in cooldown to continue.


You also got the gist of the cost scaling, but missed the bit where I mentioned the min/max costs would need to be capped (at a high but affordable level). I did some math on it a while back, but in short the suggestion was that costs should be lower for corporations of around the same size, but increased as they differ. Of course, this would need a ton of data to be looked at based on wars over the last year or more and analyse the typical wars to determine the sweet spots.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#65 - 2012-02-25 08:54:35 UTC
Kelduum:

In general, I would say that your proposals seem fairly rounded, but on closer inspection are missing a few key points. One, which perhaps is a unique perception to me, is that you are seeking to make wars easily relegated to a short-term affair, something that comes in a day and could just as easily flutter away at any time, perhaps while you sleep or pop out to lunch, requiring no particular investment and with no particular weighty threat of days behind them. This only belittles and detracts from their usefulness and meaning in the game. When you declare war on someone, you should really mean it, and they should know that you do, too.

This should mean no one-day war bills, no one-hour cooldowns. Going through with these changes would completely change the perception of a war as something of genuine importance to a minor annoyance that can possibly be dealt with before lunch, or perhaps by the start of the weekend. Whether the average length of wars changes or not is no part of this equation; the perception is all-important. Nor do I think convenience should be a concern here; wars have never been convenient. To put it bluntly, the very lack of convenience is the thing that gives a war weight in the first place, on Earth as it is in EVE.



Kelduum Revaan wrote:
- A deposit paid by the attacker to CONCORD, which is returned if they retract the war rather than leaving it to expire. This would deal with some of the 'I made a mistake, but I refuse to accept it' things that E-UNI tended to see.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, but I can sort of guess. When a war is left to expire, that's the end of it. That has nothing to do with refusing to accept the loss and everything to do with letting the war go as long as possible with the money and war slots you budgeted towards that particular war. Forcing someone to be present at the very end of the war cycle to get all the value they paid for is simply bad game design.

If a war is retracted, that could mean they lost or they need a slot right away. If a war is left to be "declared invalid" by CONCORD due to unpaid bills, that just means it went as long as possible -- the full run of the week. The fact that you perceive the process of getting your full value out of the war as poor sportsmanship, an assumption that is both egotistical and fallacious, speaks volumes.



The idea for scaling costs based on the number of people in the group declared upon is also, I think, a bad idea for the reasons Aleks already pointed out. Namely, you should not be given breaks for fighting below your weight class, nor should you be penalized for attacking a large group that is well able to defend itself. That is its own penalty.

Nor should war costs scale based on the size of the attacker. I can only see this encouraging the aggressors to split into smaller, individually less expensive groups to make comprehensive retaliation prohibitively expensive. Likewise is cost scaling based on relative population between the attacker and defender. The population of an entity has little bearing on their effectiveness; indeed, above a fairly small number, it often has no significance at all. Making groups feel obligated to pad or expunge their membership in order to cheapen or avoid wars is a bad precedent to set.

War fees should be flat rates. Anything else is inviting disaster and unpleasant shenanigans unless it somehow takes these issues into consideration.



And finally, yes, I would not be against giving war fees a fluctuating material reference, a wide index provided by minerals and moon goo perhaps. The value of ISK has drifted pretty crazily in the past few years, and it would be important to address this and make sure that the costs are just as meaty or affordable as intended, on a realistic and relevant scale.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#66 - 2012-02-25 13:47:36 UTC
I very much like what I'm reading in this thread and on your blog.

One questions for you:

It's always struck me as odd that when in a station in lowsec (or wardecced in highsec) we need an alt scout to check if it's safe to undock. It seems absurd that we can't simply look out of a window to see what's out there or have some scanner to check. From a RP point of view how would the station staff tow ships in if they didn't know who was there?

Any thoughts on this issue?
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-02-25 19:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly


I have placed your comments regarding Bounty Huniting into the linked thread which you can find in my first request.

As purely an objective analysis of your blog comments you may wish to review certain claims since if you look at this thread you will notice two previous requests I made on the game topic.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#68 - 2012-02-25 20:16:37 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
I very much like what I'm reading in this thread and on your blog.

One questions for you:

It's always struck me as odd that when in a station in lowsec (or wardecced in highsec) we need an alt scout to check if it's safe to undock. It seems absurd that we can't simply look out of a window to see what's out there or have some scanner to check. From a RP point of view how would the station staff tow ships in if they didn't know who was there?

Any thoughts on this issue?


I agree it's odd and the "station windows" feature has been a desire of a big portion of the player base for quite a while. I think it makes a lot of sense to have that feature. However I know it'd be somewhat resource intensive to develop from what we discussed at CSM4 and I don't think it makes a lot of sense to prioritize that feature over other development needs right now.

@Kelduum I still think allowing cooldowns to be cancelled is not a good feature; you didnt respond to the exploit potential I brought up. If that's the cornerstone of how your framework for war decs would be able to address the alliance hopping + POS invulnerability exploits I see a problem there

I also agree with lam that war would be a more compelling experience for both sides if it was srs biz rather than a temporary, low-risk annoyance + his points on pricing.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#69 - 2012-02-25 22:43:25 UTC
Some skilled folks made some pretty good campaign posters now featured on the EVE Online Facebook page. Check them out here and here

Also check out my interview on Fly Reckless and an upcoming not-to-be-missed episode on Voices from the Void.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Azran Zala
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-02-26 10:19:37 UTC
+1 voter for Alekseyev Karrde.

Im glad to have found a candidate that understands the playstyles and needs of both high & lowsec pvp'rs aswell as nullsec blocs.
Small gang warfar is the most challanging and entertaining part of eve, and the most succeptible to poor balancing, I believe you have the knowledge to protect this vital role in eve.

As for wardecs; Your experiance as a hired gun, should give you ample insites as to the need and mechanics behind wardecs for the agressor, aswell as experiance from contracts you've done for defending the victums assets puts you in the possition best to advise on mechanics that are balanced and fair for both parties.

On top of that you're willing to get the ball rolling on the CSM for improvements to attracting more content to lowsec, and overhauling the bounty system to something thats actually useful, then I'd have my cake and eat it in voting for you.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#71 - 2012-02-26 21:59:03 UTC
Azran Zala wrote:

On top of that you're willing to get the ball rolling on the CSM for improvements to attracting more content to lowsec, and overhauling the bounty system to something thats actually useful, then I'd have my cake and eat it in voting for you.

Want to reiterate aside from FW, i dont think there will be a comprehensive look at lowsec during the CSM7 term. But I do think it's important that one happens and hopefully we can lay the groundwork for 2013 and CSM8 to make it happen there.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#72 - 2012-02-26 22:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Voices from the Void 1 on 1 with Mike Azariah

Definitely don't miss this one; it's hilarious.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-02-27 00:03:41 UTC
I had a blast as well, thanks Aleks

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Vordak Kallager
Eurotrash
Blue Eyes and Exodia Toon Duelist Kingdom Duelers
#74 - 2012-02-27 00:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vordak Kallager
Lexi Acro
Acro Industries
#75 - 2012-02-27 08:30:53 UTC
I support this candiidate!

Go Alek!
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#76 - 2012-02-28 08:07:39 UTC
Lost In EVE Debates (vs. Kelduum, Trebor, and Leboe)

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#77 - 2012-02-28 18:34:15 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
2012.06.02 13:00 - POS holding Defender Corp leaves alliance. 24 hour cooldown beings.
2012.06.02 22:00 - Attacker logs back in, declares new war against the Defender Corp. Cooldown cancelled and war continues.
Impossible, and I read all your modifications. This point wasn't adressed.
You can't wardec a corp that just left an alliance until the next DT.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

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

Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#78 - 2012-02-28 19:05:18 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
2012.06.02 13:00 - POS holding Defender Corp leaves alliance. 24 hour cooldown beings.
2012.06.02 22:00 - Attacker logs back in, declares new war against the Defender Corp. Cooldown cancelled and war continues.
Impossible, and I read all your modifications. This point wasn't adressed.
You can't wardec a corp that just left an alliance until the next DT.


Bearing in mind this is supposed to be a fix to the wardec mechanics, and we're assuming that CCP are rewriting the existing code so its in a maintainable state, so they don't have the existing problems. Point 5 states:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
5. Allow an attacker to 're-start' a war in cooldown simply be declaring again. Cooldown is cancelled and war continues as before.
So, it would be possible with those changes.

It isn't at the moment due to the way that alliances were hacked into the wardec mechanics so long ago - as is, leaving a wardecced alliance creates a new war and then surrender/retracts it immediately, meaning theres already a war, and preventing you from declaring twice.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#79 - 2012-02-28 23:59:28 UTC
Thanks for participating in my debate threads!

That deserves a bump on your candidate thread. Smile

I do hope you make it into the next CSM, you have some good ideas related to important parts of Eve and I think you would make great contributions if elected!

Issler
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#80 - 2012-02-29 08:14:39 UTC
Alekseyev could be useful as a token small gang warfare candidate. Their views certainly seem to be neglected. Specifically the low sec community.