These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

***CSM Interstellar Debate - Combat PvP***

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#1 - 2012-02-13 13:53:25 UTC
Today, I am hosting another debate in which the candidates for the Council of Stellar Management can use as a platform for their campaigns.

Topic

The topic of debate is the issue of pvp (player vs. player). But of course, that could mean a lot of things as every aspect of Eve Online is pvp driven from mining to market manipulation and from Jita scams to blob warfare. Therefore, the type of pvp the candidates will be debating is the combat-type pvp (actual shooting). In other words: anything ranging from war declarations in high sec to frigate roams in low sec and blob warfare in null sec.

Not Part of the Topic

For this thread, the debate about suicide ganks in high sec will not be supported due to the extremely long debate it will bring and how polarizing it can be. Therefore, I request all candidates to please refrain from discussing that in this thread. I will start another thread about that soon so that this thread won't be overwhelmed by the gank topic.

Questions to the Candidates


  1. How do you feel about the issue of corp members switching different corps to avoid the wardec (dec shield for instance) that is brought upon them?

  2. Some people complain about the lack of 1v1 pvp in low-sec and high-sec space and how some people are setting up traps with either shield/armor-rep alts or with other pvp buddies. How do you respond to that?

  3. In regards to supercapitals, what is your take on them? Do you or do you not believe that supercapitals are becoming too much of a deciding factor on the outcome of a battle or if the recent nerf on supercapitals is sufficient or too overreaching? Why?

  4. What major flaw (if you think there is a flaw) regarding supercapitals do you feel hasn't been addressed by CCP? Why?

  5. How do you feel about the recent changes to the neutral RR mechanic made by CCP? Do you feel that such a decision is logical or illogical? If so, why?

  6. What idea(s) do you propose that would help draw new/veteran players into pvp more often? What incentive(s) do you suggest should be included to encourage even the non-pvp focused player to sacrifice their shiny for a kill mail?

  7. How do you feel about docking games? Why?

  8. How hard will you press these issues/ideas on CCP upon being elected?

Adapt or Die
Tiger Would
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-02-13 15:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger Would
Forum ate my post, ill try again, but will take a while.....again

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would
Tiger Would
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-02-13 15:44:09 UTC
Before answering I like to emphasize that I like to put back the D into Democracy. My Campaign boils down to getting a broader range of the player base involved with the CSM processes. It is therefore a lot less important what I think. When elected I would just organize the roundtables, help sorting focal points etc., rather guiding the process than actually be a sole voice representing a large pool of players.

1. How do you feel about the issue of corp members switching different corps to avoid the wardec (dec shield for instance) that is brought upon them?

I do not think the dec-shield possibility is a valid one in a game like EvE-Online. It is all about making ones choices and deal with those of others. There are multiple options to deal with it even if you do not wish to fight. Be creative!



2. Some people complain about the lack of 1v1 pvp in low-sec and high-sec space and how some people are setting up traps with either shield/armor-rep alts or with other pvp buddies. How do you respond to that?

Deal with it. It is not a secret that everything goes within EvE within the EULA. Again, be creative and use the tools at your disposal.



3. In regards to supercapitals, what is your take on them? Do you or do you not believe that supercapitals are becoming too much of a deciding factor on the outcome of a battle or if the recent nerf on supercapitals is sufficient or too overreaching? Why?

The only knowledge i possess in regards to super capitals is extensive a theory mixed with close follow up info coming from alliances using the super capitals. But, as my opinion stand now, I think it is headed in the right direction but not finished yet. There are still too many of them.




4. What major flaw (if you think there is a flaw) regarding supercapitals do you feel hasn't been addressed by CCP? Why?

It seems super capitals are still too hard to destroy. The risk/reward ratio still seems to be somewhat skewed.



5. How do you feel about the recent changes to the neutral RR mechanic made by CCP? Do you feel that such a decision is logical or illogical? If so, why?

That is an easy one. RR is not a hostile act. That says it all imo.



6. What idea(s) do you propose that would help draw new/veteran players into pvp more often? What incentive(s) do you suggest should be included to encourage even the non-pvp focused player to sacrifice their shiny for a kill mail?

Your question suggests every player should want kill mails. This is simply not true. That said however, I could see why you would maybe want to change the way the message about high-sec is being relayed. Somehow people miss out on the message that you can be killed everywhere.



7. How do you feel about docking games? Why?

Well, it is not important how i feel about it. It is the players themselves who decide what is good for them. It is a sandbox after all.



8. How hard will you press these issues/ideas on CCP upon being elected?

Since my focus is on the young player experience, make ambitious goals visible and get a broader spectrum of players involved with the CSM processes in order to indirectly up the subscription numbers….i think it is safe to say…….very hard.

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
The Initiative.
#4 - 2012-02-13 15:55:41 UTC


I do think that there should be 24 hour period for everyone though-not just for those with roles.

  • I think that there should be arena style combat that is semi balanced, similar to World Of Tanks, with 1v1 to 15v15 or more in a sanctioned format that noncombatants cannot interfere with

  • Supercapital Proliferation is among the worst of the problems in Eve. I think Fighterbombers and Titans guns should not be allowed to fire in Lowsec and NPC nullsec space.

    • The new neutral remote rep mechanic is dildos. It should be able to be turned off and not pop up each and every time the person receiving the reps switches targets.


    Docking games are moronic and timers should be increased/implemented for anyone providing remote reps/assistance

    See my campaign thread post #3 for more details on my various stances.

    Hmmm
    Tiger Would
    Doomheim
    #5 - 2012-02-13 16:07:07 UTC
    Quote:
    It should be able to be turned off and not pop up each and every time the person receiving the reps switches targets.


    Ya, i agree that does give a feel off it being "broken". This does not discard however that RR as a neutral is not a hostile act in itself. So the change in itself is a good one. There is just another issue revealed from that.

    Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

    T. Would
    Akrasjel Lanate
    Immemorial Coalescence Administration
    Immemorial Coalescence
    #6 - 2012-02-13 17:22:50 UTC
    Darius III wrote:



  • I think that there should be arena style combat that is semi balanced, similar to World Of Tanks, with 1v1 to 15v15 or more in a sanctioned format that noncombatants cannot interfere with


    • You mad bro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    CEO of Lanate Industries

    Citizen of Solitude
    Henry Haphorn
    Killer Yankee
    #7 - 2012-02-14 14:14:56 UTC
    Bump

    Adapt or Die
    Henry Haphorn
    Killer Yankee
    #8 - 2012-02-27 13:28:55 UTC
    Second bump

    Adapt or Die
    Woo Glin
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #9 - 2012-02-27 14:02:00 UTC
    That's a pretty good sign that nobody cares about these threads. Maybe stop making them. v0v
    Henry Haphorn
    Killer Yankee
    #10 - 2012-02-27 14:20:59 UTC
    Woo Glin wrote:
    That's a pretty good sign that nobody cares about these threads. Maybe stop making them. v0v


    Perhaps so, but someone had to try to start a discussion about it. After all, I'm trying to provide a platform for the CSM7 candidates so that players can understand them more.

    Adapt or Die
    Aiifa
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #11 - 2012-02-27 15:39:53 UTC
    Darius III wrote:


  • I think that there should be arena style combat that is semi balanced, similar to World Of Tanks, with 1v1 to 15v15 or more in a sanctioned format that noncombatants cannot interfere with


    • Have you considered sisi or dead end losec systems?
    FloppieTheBanjoClown
    Arcana Imperii Ltd.
    #12 - 2012-02-27 16:21:44 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
    Paperwork delays put me out of the running, but I want to weigh in here to help push the conversation along.

    My blog entry on some of this: http://stinkinguplocal.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/fixing-eve-warfare/

    I think the ability of players to enter and leave corporations during war isn't something that is easily turned on and off. There are a lot of potential problems. If we add a 24 hour timer to be able to leave a corp, this means that someone who joins a corp is potentially subject to being attacked by malicious new corpmates for 24 hours. This means that someone can lose a day of play simply because they were recruited into a malicious corp.

    The obvious response would be to limit the 24-hour cooldown to times of war. This makes sense, until I join an infiltrator alt to your corp, wardec you, and have 24 hours to awox your corp's ships before you're able to kick me. And if you remove the 24-hour wait to allow instant kicking, CEOs will be able to remove all their non-PVP members by kicking them out of corp when a war starts. One solution to the kicking problem would be to prevent kicked members from returning to the corporation for a significant amount of time...let's say 60-90 days. Also, any time a member is kicked from a corp it should appear in the corp history.

    (edit)I forgot to mention my ongoing desire to put an end to long-term NPC corp membership. There need to be drawbacks to NPC corps beyond a little tax that doesn't impact most of the alts that use them. I laid out some ideas in the blog post I linked above.(/edit)

    Also, one suggestion I have is that corp info pages need to have a wars tab. Right now it's possible to look up the war status of any corp or alliance, but it's not in an obvious place and most players I've talked to don't even know how to find it. if a player is going to be expected to look before they leap and know what they're getting into when they're recruited, they need to be able to determine the level of danger they would be getting into.

    At a larger scale, corporations being able to drop/scrape from wardecs by entering and leaving alliances is obviously not an intended game mechanic. There are two flavors of this being done: First, a corp can join an alliance and leave it immediately, allowing them to shed the wardec. Dec Shield is best known for this. Second, and something less reported, is that an alliance can drop its holding corp while at war in order to protect its POS and other assets.

    I've repeatedly recommended that wardecs not be tranferred to alliances, but instead be applied either directly to the alliance or to a specific corporation. This prevents the dec scrape by corps, and causes a wardec to follow a holding corp should it be ejected from an alliance. One relatively simple change to the mechanic fixes most of the wardec complaints.

    As for #2, I have to be honest that in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game, 1v1 isn't a major concern of mine. It's fun when you can get it, but if you walk into a trap without support available it's time you stop trying to play a single-player version of an MMO. That said, I've been rather vocal with my dislike for neutral repping alts and the fact that they can easily escape fights happening outside stations and on gates due to the lack of inherited aggression.

    My take on supercapitals is that I've never encountered them as I've never gotten involved in the big alliances, but I agree with what appears to be the majority opinion that supercaps as they have been used in recent history make for boring battles. They homogenize the battlefield by forcing everyone involved to simply play the game of having the most supercaps on the field. We need something that prompts more diverse fleets so that pilots of varying skills can contribute to those battles in a meaningful way.

    Docking games: My solution here is simple. Allow someone who has undocked a 60-second window to decide whether they want to dock back up under aggression. So if you undock and start to align and find yourself under attack, you can dock again. If you're sitting outside the station for longer than 60 seconds and find yourself under attack, the station will refuse you. Couple this with neutral RR being locked out if they assist someone in combat and you'll see docking games get a lot less stupid.

    Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
    Grumpy Owly
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #13 - 2012-02-27 17:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
    Henry Haphorn wrote:


    1. How do you feel about the issue of corp members switching different corps to avoid the wardec (dec shield for instance) that is brought upon them?


    Corp members switching to different corps for personal advantage to be excluded or included in a specific war decleration is not "dec shielding" it is "corp hopping".


    "Dec shielding" can be associated in two different ways (I think, certainly been used for both these situations):

    1) The abundant use of "freindly wars" to make aggression against your alliance expensive.

    2) The association of your corporation with a specific alliance with the intention to subsequently drop from the alliance reattaching any previous war declerations to the alliance left.


    Also need to include, "corp dropping":

    The switching between player corporations and npc corporations to avoid the ramifications of war decleration mechanics.



    These are all valid mechanics under the present war system, but frowned upon due to the relative ease in how these methods are applied as avoidance tools. Normally however with some irony, these are frowned upon when it is disadvantageous to an individual, but still applied if advantageous of course. Blink

    Largely however, the consensus seems to be that it invalidates some aspect of the purpose of war mechanics. Hopefully these issues will be addressed in the fairly recently advertised and upcoming new war mechnics yet to be detailed by CCP.


    As a suggestion probably best rewording the question as to "How do you feel about the various avoidance methods attributable to war decleration mechanics"? As I think this is the intended point you want answering.

    Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

    It's just criminal - Smuggling