Change mechanic of War Declaration regarding sm vs large groups

[Celthon_Drakken]

Sent the letter below to ‘Support’ at EVE Online and was told they do not deal with feedback issues and that I should post on the forums, etc. So I copy/pasted the letter below:

---

Please forward this feedback to any and all developers of EVE Online, in the hope that it will contribute to making EVE a game more open to a larger range of player types.

I have been playing EVE Online off/on since July 2013. I feel that there is a trend, or aim, of the game’s developers to push players into group activities, which is understandable as it is a ‘multiplayer game’. However, I am of the opinion that as features are developed which encourage group play more and more, you as developers are driving away solo or small-group players. On one hand you may ascertain that this is fine, as EVE Online is a multiplayer game and known for huge groups taking part in activities…but in the world of ‘making money’, which is what your game strives to do after all is said and done, by driving away potential players (paying customers) you are pushing away profit.

Currently there are large numbers of structures in-game which are operated by corporations consisting of less than 10-players. With the current game-mechanics those structures operated by small groups are preyed upon by large groups…there is no other way to put it other than to say they are being ‘farmed’ by the big corporations/groups. You would have to be very dense not to realize that large groups/corporations risk little-to-nothing by declaring war on a small corporation…and in return for the zero-risk option they are guaranteed a profit – primarily because of the 100% drop of the ‘Quantum Core’. Your current game-mechanics very heavily cater to the large groups.

In many, many other MMO-type games there are mechanics which minimize the benefit a player or player(s) get from attacking someone or something that is far below their ‘level’ – in it’s simplest form if a player is more than x-number of levels higher than the player or NPC they are attacking they gain no XP nor loot.

With current game-mechanics as they are, a corporation pays the same amount to declare war on a small defenseless group as they would to declare war against a larger group – and from the perspective of ‘farming’ for profit the large group has no incentive to attack the larger group – they are not attacking and destroying the structures for PvP immersion…it’s done simply to make money (credits). By so heavily favoring the groups which ‘farm’ the structures of small groups you are driving away more and more of these players.

Your company will make more money if you find a way to accommodate solo players and/or small groups in addition to the large groups. To that end I suggest that you place a mechanic in-game that will scale the costs of declaring wars based on the ratio of the size of the corporations…large group declaring war on small group to ‘farm’ their structure should have to pay quite a lot more. And I am not alone in this opinion…there are many threads in your own forums, and in blogs in various places throughout the Eve Online community which echo the same feelings:
Examples:

Increase war declaration fee

Cost should simply scale with the corp size but in reverse of what it used to be. Instead of making it more expensive to declare war against biggest groups, it should be the cheapest to declare war against them. It makes no sense whatsoever that it used to cost 500M to declare war against a 10k alliance (which inherently has the means to defend itself) but only 10M against a corp with 10 characters that realistically has no way to defend itself against a war dec group. To fix perceived issues w…

War Dec Changes—One Month In - INN

As the game is now, groups buy the right to declare war on another, after investigating/searching for potential victims for their ‘farming’. They are guaranteed a minimum return of at 600,000,000 after investing nothing but time…600,000,000 is the cheapest Quantum Core, which is 100% guaranteed to drop. They’ve invested nothing but time because by being able to pick small groups to prey on they know their ‘fleet’ will suffer little-to-zero losses.

If your response would be that the game is not intended for solo players or small groups, then again I point out to you that you are driving away a significant source of income by driving these players to ‘find something else’ to do…which means they go play another game and not yours.

All players matter equally, all player experiences matter equally, focusing on a small group of openly arrogant players cannot foster growth, focusing on your type of player has only served to decrease the game’s population.

I know that my opinions will not change the path EVE Online is on, and know that this letter will lead to nothing…but when a person feels that something is wrong and does nothing about it then one can expect no changes. I write this primarily to satisfy myself, in that I at least expressed my opinion and frustration with the game’s current mechanics, even though I know it’s a waste of time.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

[May_Q_Cry]

@Celthon_Drakken

you as developers are driving away solo or small-group players.

This is intentional on their part.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Celthon_Drakken

If your response would be that the game is not intended for solo players or small groups, then again I point out to you that you are driving away a significant source of income by driving these players to ‘find something else’ to do…which means they go play another game and not yours.

The game is intended for players, whether they play solo or group up with others.

Very often grouping up with others is more efficient than trying to do things solo, so you may find that some things cannot easily be done solo, such as putting a large shooting target in space like a structure without the manpower to defend it.

[Lugh_Crow-Slave]

or they could just remove cores. They were just dumb to begin with. Remove Cores and remove asset safety.

[Scipio_Artelius]

Cores are a pretty stupid idea.

I get that it has encouraged thinning out of the structure spam, but it’s a pretty crappy game mechanic all around.

Much better to introduce a range of small structures that can be anchored and unanchored faster than Upwell structures (similar to POS anchoring and unanchoring times) and that provide access to services, but at a level somewhere between NPC stations/facilities and Upwell structures.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Lugh_Crow-Slave

or they could just remove cores. They were just dumb to begin with. Remove Cores and remove asset safety.

Cores fixed structure spam as a strategy and cores made structures worth fighting over for both defenders and attackers.

While they may not be nice for solo pilots that wish to own a structure as there now is an ISK incentive to take that structure down, it is good for the game as a whole.

‘Remove asset safety’ - I kind of agree about that, but think it is a topic for another thread.

[Lugh_Crow-Slave]

That would be why removing safety would also be a requirement.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Lugh_Crow-Slave

That would be why removing safety would also be a requirement.

Oh you would want to replace the dropped value of the core with the dropped value of assets?

That would not work, as people would not put any assets in spammed citadels, which means there are no stakes to fight over for those structures, something the introduction of cores accomplished.

Sure, remove asset safety, but cores are here to stay.

[Lugh_Crow-Slave]

@Gerard_Amatin

That would not work, as people would not put any assets in spammed citadels, which means there are no stakes to fight over for those structures, something the introduction of cores accomplished.

You would need at the very least a service and fuel to avoid it being abandoned or low power. If needed require fuel for docking services to function.

Or you know, ccp could use the same solution they already found with POS and require moons to anchor.

Or at the very least require vouchers for .4 and up again.

[Brisc_Rubal]

I’ve passed this on to CCP, as I noted in my response to your eve mail with the same content.