These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#701 - 2012-04-14 08:55:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Amun Khonsu
Xorv wrote:


That's like saying PvPers are hostage to Industrialists because without buying what they produce they can't PvP.

You can't divide things like that in a game like this, everything is interconnected and ought to be. I'm sorry but your comments are just ignorant.

Also irrespective of what people call themselves you can't really be either a Pirate or a Merc atm, I very much doubt there are many players that truly sustain themselves exclusively from either.


Ofc it is interconnected. Ccp did state it is a pvp game. It's their line in the sand, not mine

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#702 - 2012-04-14 09:00:11 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Amun Khonsu wrote:

PVP game or not, the game is billed as a game where you can be a combat pilot, pirate, merc, trader or industrialist. This proposed system singlehandedly wipes out industrialism in eve as it leaves them hostage to the pvpr, esp if they are a small corp or alliance and cannot afford mercs. Even if they can afford mercs they have to stay docked, not playing the game.


That's like saying PvPers are hostage to Industrialists because without buying what they produce they can't PvP.

You can't divide things like that in a game like this, everything is interconnected and ought to be. I'm sorry but your comments are just ignorant.

Also irrespective of what people call themselves you can't really be either a Pirate or a Merc atm, I very much doubt there are many players that truly sustain themselves exclusively from either.


Very rarely, from what I've seen over the past years.

I can't see how any wardec system can "wipe out" industrialism, given that there's plenty options and possibilities to dodge Unfriendlies even when permadecced.

Of course, that means being creative, interacting with other players, taking risks, using an enemies' tactics and weaknesses against them, and the general mindset of raising the fat middle finger to those who oppose you.
Perish the thought you might have to do that in....Oh wait.... This is EVE.... Shocked

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#703 - 2012-04-14 09:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Amun Khonsu
Off the issue already. We are not talking about any war mechanic system. We are talking about the one proposed and how to refine it for the benefit of everyone, not just the griefers.

EVE isn't just for griefers though increasingly it is appearing in publications that it is what characterises the game..esp after the goon issue encouraging cyberbullying of an unstable individual.

Being seen as such a game can backfire on the bottom line eventually.

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#704 - 2012-04-14 10:00:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Grikath
Amun Khonsu wrote:
Off the issue already. We are not talking about any war mechanic system. We are talking about the one proposed and how to refine it for the benefit of everyone, not just the griefers.

EVE isn't just for griefers though increasingly it is appearing in publications that it is what characterises the game..esp after the goon issue encouraging cyberbullying of an unstable individual.

Being seen as such a game can backfire on the bottom line eventually.


And who's trying to derail the thread by deftly inserting the Fanfest Incident into the discussion? *snort* Roll

Any negative "representation" of the game is actually mostly done by "opinion-makers" with their own agenda who themselves play the Game. So any repercussions towards a bottom line through player influx is ultimately their Bad Journalism, and has nothing to do with proposed game mechanics.

As those stand, they are better than the current system, with the possible exception of the costs involved outside of assploded ships.
Those costs as they stand even makes highsec safer as they discourage loldecs because of the associated costs.

NOTHING, however involved and artificial, will stop a very large corp or alliance from wardeccing a much smaller corp, outside of outright size-blocking which will never , ever happen. And there's actually several reasons why large corps might want to 'dec small fry, including disrupting highsec operations of satellite corps.
Will it be used by players to "grief" poor innocent people who want to solo in a sandbox outside of NPC corp and will scream bloody murder about "their game experience being ruined" ? Oh hell yes.

Do the proposed mechanisms stop people who actually play the game from any of the usual activities to dodge agressors? Not at all, It's business as usual. There's a lot of screaming about, well..... nothing much, really.

Carebears lose their decshield, griefers lose their cheap loldecs, suicide ganking is still quite possible with a bit of application, "neutral" interference in a war will get flagged making life a lot more clear at both sides of the equation.
Easy peasy.

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
None ofthe Above
#705 - 2012-04-14 14:16:27 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Two weeks to release + all code written = no serious changes to mechanics.

If the code can't tell wether a corp is big or small and put a price tag accordingly, it won't learn in a couple weeks. There's no matherial time to do a differential cost scheme unless it already was conceived. And then, if the system had included differential pricing from the first "hi guys" from CCP SoniClover, then the outrage wouldn't have been.

So the ugly truth is that CCP spoiled it big time and now it's too late to change course and avoid the disaster.

They should really had put this forward before any coding. Telling us that now Goons' wardec shield may be 3 billion instead of 4 won't cut it. Roll


Six weeks, to release I'd say.

This stuff doesn't look like its slated for Escalation in two weeks, its going to be coded over the next couple of weeks, and then slated for the Inferno release.

That's my read on it anyway.

So probably time for some course corrections, but you are probably right that it's not possible to completely revamp this beast at this point.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#706 - 2012-04-14 14:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Amun Khonsu
Grikath wrote:
Amun Khonsu wrote:
Off the issue already. We are not talking about any war mechanic system. We are talking about the one proposed and how to refine it for the benefit of everyone, not just the griefers.

EVE isn't just for griefers though increasingly it is appearing in publications that it is what characterises the game..esp after the goon issue encouraging cyberbullying of an unstable individual.

Being seen as such a game can backfire on the bottom line eventually.


And who's trying to derail the thread by deftly inserting the Fanfest Incident into the discussion? *snort* Roll

.


Didn't try to derail it. It is only derailed if you decide to focus on it when it's clearly not the focus of my post

Negative opinions are a reality regardless of what ccp does good or bad, as are positive ones. Opinion OPed is a valid way to guage what is happening in game.

When it costs 5 billion to dec a small corp and only 20 million to dec goons, most of what you said will be valid support for the new system.

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
None ofthe Above
#707 - 2012-04-14 14:51:50 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Amun Khonsu wrote:

The current proposed system is no doubt due to a heavy pirate contingent on the csm board.


Mmm the current proposals were presented at fanfest before the current board even knew the election results. So hard to agree with you on this point.

I do see Kelduum/EvE-U's hand in this though. The cost scaling looks to me to be a response to Ivy League's desire to be free of nuisance wardecs. Kelduum being CSM candidate at that point probably had little to do with it though, it's probably more a response to how to do away with the currently in place DecShield feature/exploit.

CSM6 may have a hand in this, but I think largely this is CCP in the proposals. What happens next may very well have a lot to do with CSM7, and I do think you have reason to be concerned there.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#708 - 2012-04-14 14:52:54 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Amun Khonsu wrote:

The current proposed system is no doubt due to a heavy pirate contingent on the csm board.


Mmm the current proposals were presented at fanfest before the current board even knew the election results. So hard to agree with you on this point.

I do see Kelduum/EvE-Us hand in this though. The cost scaling looks to me to be a response to Ivy League's desire to be free of nuisance wardecs. Kelduum being CSM candidate at that point probably had little to do with it though, it's probably more a response to how to do away with the currently in place DecShield feature/exploit.

CSM6 may have a hand in this, but I think largely this is CCP in the proposals. What happens next may very well have a lot to do with CSM7, and I do think you have reason to be concerned there.


The representation on the board hasn't change beyond faces

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
None ofthe Above
#709 - 2012-04-14 15:00:49 UTC
Amun Khonsu wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Amun Khonsu wrote:

The current proposed system is no doubt due to a heavy pirate contingent on the csm board.


Mmm the current proposals were presented at fanfest before the current board even knew the election results. So hard to agree with you on this point.

I do see Kelduum/EvE-Us hand in this though. The cost scaling looks to me to be a response to Ivy League's desire to be free of nuisance wardecs. Kelduum being CSM candidate at that point probably had little to do with it though, it's probably more a response to how to do away with the currently in place DecShield feature/exploit.

CSM6 may have a hand in this, but I think largely this is CCP in the proposals. What happens next may very well have a lot to do with CSM7, and I do think you have reason to be concerned there.


The representation on the board hasn't change beyond faces


Well, like I've said, I do think there is reason to be concerned. But if you can't tell the difference between CSM6 and CSM7, you've got the tinfoil wrapped too tight. Lol

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Alexiias
State War Academy
Caldari State
#710 - 2012-04-14 18:34:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexiias
I'm sorry yes most of what is proposed sounds good, but they need to do something about the greifer part. I know they will not take out the wardecing of miner corps but they need some sort of deterent to prevent them from wardecing the 20 man miner corporaion that can't defend themself. Instead make them want to go after a pvp corporation give them a bonus. I think that a corporation should be able to pick a label say under the corporation tab you would mark that you are miners and to keep that label you have to mine so much ore depending on your corporation size. If the amount is meet then you are not to be wardec as easily. If a pirate corporation wants to Dec you they have to pay a large bill. Atleast it would hurt their. Wallet cause most miners are not going to hurt their ships.

That's just my thoughts on the matter.
Loridia Jade
Ghost Operations Tactical Unit
#711 - 2012-04-14 18:52:44 UTC
Grikath wrote:
As those stand, they are better than the current system, with the possible exception of the costs involved outside of assploded ships.
Those costs as they stand even makes highsec safer as they discourage loldecs because of the associated costs.

NOTHING, however involved and artificial, will stop a very large corp or alliance from wardeccing a much smaller corp, outside of outright size-blocking which will never , ever happen. And there's actually several reasons why large corps might want to 'dec small fry, including disrupting highsec operations of satellite corps.
Will it be used by players to "grief" poor innocent people who want to solo in a sandbox outside of NPC corp and will scream bloody murder about "their game experience being ruined" ? Oh hell yes.

Do the proposed mechanisms stop people who actually play the game from any of the usual activities to dodge agressors? Not at all, It's business as usual. There's a lot of screaming about, well..... nothing much, really.

Carebears lose their decshield, griefers lose their cheap loldecs, suicide ganking is still quite possible with a bit of application, "neutral" interference in a war will get flagged making life a lot more clear at both sides of the equation.
Easy peasy.


So, is that how you sold the proposed system to SomiClover? Dude your statement here is so full of Sh!T your kids are gonna come out brown. You have well over 30 pages here that argue your assumption... nothing will go Business as usual, on both sides.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Show with the Hand, Deliver with the Mouth, Steal with the Eyes; Tempt fate not, for therein lay a dark surprise.

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#712 - 2012-04-14 19:18:32 UTC
Alexiias wrote:
I know they will not take out the wardecing of miner corps but they need some sort of deterent to prevent them from wardecing the 20 man miner corporaion that can't defend themself.

Nothing is stopping that miner corp from defending themselves. If anything, the new system would give them more tools to do just that. What the miner corp needs to do is stop thinking they're victims and instead find ways to fight back.
Alexiias wrote:
Instead make them want to go after a pvp corporation give them a bonus. I think that a corporation should be able to pick a label say under the corporation tab you would mark that you are miners and to keep that label you have to mine so much ore depending on your corporation size. If the amount is meet then you are not to be wardec as easily. If a pirate corporation wants to Dec you they have to pay a large bill. Atleast it would hurt their. Wallet cause most miners are not going to hurt their ships.

This is a really stupid idea for several reasons, like quotas, who sets them and how they are determined, how easy is it to game the definition, what other definitions exist, etc... Putting people into little boxes ruins the entire idea of the sandbox.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Kemal Ataturk
Antisocial Mental Disorder
#713 - 2012-04-14 19:20:31 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Kemal Ataturk wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
[quote=Manssell]

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



Thats absolutely not true you decided to get rid of small corps esspecialy industrial corps because if they get wardeced they have to leave their pos(es) behind and go to npc corps or to pay isk or to sit in station. And that many times one after the other. Thats all about it.



I am not sure how this is different than what happens now? Small corps already accept the risk of being decced and live through decs everyday, without help.

Now. With Inferno you can get help and griefers have to anticipate that. It is actually going to be more expensive to dec you. And I frankly think you underestimate the number of antipirate griefer haters with a space police complex who will be quite willing to lend you a hand, myself included.

Argus


Right now there are some workarounds, some mentioned here earlier like Dec shield alliances etc.
Kemal Ataturk
Antisocial Mental Disorder
#714 - 2012-04-14 19:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Kemal Ataturk
Karl Hobb wrote:

Nothing is stopping that miner corp from defending themselves. If anything, the new system would give them more tools to do just that. What the miner corp needs to do is stop thinking they're victims and instead find ways to fight back.


Why should someone fight where and when you decide it? If someone want to fight he can go to low sec or 0.0 or not? Maybe he is a miner because he wants to MINE and not to PVP.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#715 - 2012-04-14 19:26:07 UTC
Kemal Ataturk wrote:
Why should someone fight when you decide it? If someone want to fight he can go to low sec or 0.0 or not? Maybe he is a miner because he wants to MINE and not to PVP.

What if I'm a miner myself and I don't want those guys in my belts?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Kira Vanachura
Green Visstick High
#716 - 2012-04-14 19:36:07 UTC
Amun Khonsu wrote:
Off the issue already. We are not talking about any war mechanic system. We are talking about the one proposed and how to refine it for the benefit of everyone, not just the griefers

EVE isn't just for griefers though increasingly it is appearing in publications that it is what characterises the game..esp after the goon issue encouraging cyberbullying of an unstable individual

Being seen as such a game can backfire on the bottom line eventually.

Upto fanfest CCP didn't try to prevent griefing. They used it to show the world how anything was possible in Eve. After the fanfest incident however they wrote a devblog in which they anounced to change their communication strategy. Some people fear that this policy change could lead to CCP taking measures against griefing. Supposedly the Jita interdiction is meant to test whether CCP would go this far. The new War mechanics already raise the fee for griefing. It will be interesting to see whether CCP makes any further changes in this direction.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#717 - 2012-04-14 19:50:08 UTC
So late in the thread that it probably won't get noticed, but the current problem with highsec war is obvious if you look at it:

There is no benefit for a carebear corp in defending from a war by conventional means. There is nothing in the PvP war equation that matters to them in any positive respect.

How do you get people to agree to do something when the best case outcome for them is they didn't lose anything today?

How do you provide an incentive for them to actually fight back, when they obviously don't care about PvP stats?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#718 - 2012-04-14 19:58:07 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So late in the thread that it probably won't get noticed, but the current problem with highsec war is obvious if you look at it:

There is no benefit for a carebear corp in defending from a war by conventional means. There is nothing in the PvP war equation that matters to them in any positive respect.

How do you get people to agree to do something when the best case outcome for them is they didn't lose anything today?

How do you provide an incentive for them to actually fight back, when they obviously don't care about PvP stats?

PvP stats aren't the only reasons to go to war in this game, nor are they the only reasons to defend yourself from legal aggression. Industrial corps might have to defend a tower, mining corps might have to defend their right to mine in a certain system, missioners might have to defend their right to mission in a certain hub, a P.I. farmer might have to defend their right to access a planet, etc...

The problem has nothing to do with incentive. Victim mentality is the only thing that prevents a corp from fighting back. Griefing in this game is generally a very specific subset of PvP, and is far from the only reason to go to war. The new wardeck system has some flaws, as pointed out multiple times, but it provides many more tools to fight back.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#719 - 2012-04-14 20:06:06 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
So late in the thread that it probably won't get noticed, but the current problem with highsec war is obvious if you look at it:

There is no benefit for a carebear corp in defending from a war by conventional means. There is nothing in the PvP war equation that matters to them in any positive respect.

How do you get people to agree to do something when the best case outcome for them is they didn't lose anything today?

How do you provide an incentive for them to actually fight back, when they obviously don't care about PvP stats?


How about (combat) PvP people who actually wants to (combat) PvP and stop bothering people who actively chose to not (combat) PvP?

This game is marketed as sandbox, but then it turns that every last hooligan in the playground can dictate upon you how to play. Roll
Kemal Ataturk
Antisocial Mental Disorder
#720 - 2012-04-14 20:11:28 UTC
Amun Khonsu wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification. The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.


I'll preface this by saying, I am a combat pilot, not a carebear. However I have to say this.

In this game no one needs incentive to go to war.. High sec is full of them. In low sec they don't even declare war..they just shoot. Maybe focusing on low sec incentive to declare war instead of allowing it to be treated like its null sec. Just a side thought.

What they need is a better mechanic. You guys are doing well to address it. However, you can't make it griefer paradise. Ppl need to be responsible for their actions. If they declare war, the defender must have a mechanism to eventually get out of the war.. Ie never ending is silly.

First the war needs to be able to be turned back on the aggressor and the defender if successful needs to have the option to put the aggressor into an unwanted war for a period of time... Free counter dec perhaps. Second, wars must have an end and not be never ending at the behest of the aggressor. Third, corps or alliances should not be able to be ransomed over and over when the aggressor sees they can re- dec every 7 days demanding a new isk value to end the war.

The current proposed system is no doubt due to a heavy pirate contingent on the csm board. Less industrialism in eve means higher prices and more plex purchasing. Seems the real reason for ccp stating this is the 'line in the sand' they are drawing.

PVP game or not, the game is billed as a game where you can be a combat pilot, pirate, merc, trader or industrialist. This proposed system singlehandedly wipes out industrialism in eve as it leaves them hostage to the pvpr, esp if they are a small corp or alliance and cannot afford mercs. Even if they can afford mercs they have to stay docked, not playing the game.

Small corps will not survive. Ppl on the csm will.... *cough*goons...griefers

+1

this