CSM 13 - High Sec Issues/Suggestions/Ideas


(darkestkhan Eriker) #424

Was not that data pretty much looking at ganking case? There is a difference between war dec and gank. Gank is one off case (with exception of some … idiots … who seem to never learn), war dec tend to be more disruptive - even when no killing is involved.

(Ima Wreckyou) #425

Read the CSM minutes, they explicitly stated that new players are not the target of wardecs except for the huge nullsec feeder corps.

I’m sorry, but this is getting a bit strange. The CSM minutes talk about corp activity, which suggests they only looked at corps. You say it’s all about player activity which suggests they tracked individuals who maybe even left the corp which is not the same thing and now you don’t wan’t to clarify why there is a difference in what the minutes and you say? Why?

(Tipa Riot) #426

Because you desperately look for any loophole in the arguments to support your narrative. There is none, everything was explained and is clear (and plausible). Wardecs make people in defending corps quit playing EvE, and this in an amount apparently not healthy for the game.

(Brisc Rubal) #427

Victory conditions can’t be worked around, nor can creating an incentive for defenders to actually fight.

(Brisc Rubal) #428

They talked about player activity within a corp. It’s clear right now, so I’m not sure what you want clarified.

(mkint) #429

I never liked the victory conditions idea for wardecs. Even if it happens to work as intended (which, let’s face it, is extremely unlikely), it’s anti-sandbox. But what I’m realizing now is how it breaks the fun:suck ratio. For a wardec to stick within an acceptable fun:suck ratio, both sides need to want the war. Victory conditions seem to solve that, but they actually really really don’t. What you’ll get is the leadership will try to rally for a fight, but the rank members will just continue the same behavior as now. The failscade will become more expensive and even less a chance of anyone returning. The retention bottleneck will become more catastrophic for CCP by shifting from mostly alphas who will probably quit anyway to actual medium-term paid subscribers. Give the aggressor the tools to incite a war (i.e. harassment tools, blockades, tariffs, etc), but only give the defenders the power to actually declare the war. Any other version of wardecs is just an in-game quit factory.

(Ima Wreckyou) #430

Seriously is this so hard to understand what I’m talking about? If you wardec a corp and they all change to a new corp or even close it then that would mean that the activity drops and does not recover, because it can’t. That is pretty expected given there is a non-exploit that allows to shed wardecs by closing and reopening a corp.

In the other hand if player activity was tracked in the same scenario it would show what they do after they quit the corp. Do they join a new one? Do they actually quit? Do they stay in NPC corp forever?

It’s a pretty big difference and important if you track player or corp activity. So which one is it?

I try to understand what the actual issue is and would really like to know if they just looked at the corp or individual players. I try to make sense how this goes together with the stats Quant showed and I’m really curious if this is the case for 15 years or a recent phenomenon which can maybe be traced back to changes to the mechanics.

I hope you all realize that highsec wars will probably not go away. Or if they do then the people protected from wars will not have access to any form of structure without serious structure spam problems and 100% secure citadels for anyone, even us.

To even start to discuss about a solution we actually need to know more about the actual problem.

(Buoytender Bob) #431

According to the author of an article in MassivelyOverpowered, CCP’s ability to gather better/more data is due to the addition of new programming introduced to the game (during Into the Abyss) which will be used in part by the upcomming Activity Tracker. While CCP has always claimed they had all the needed data to back up their previous choices for gameplay and following changes, the recent technology resulted in more granulation in the data and the new analysis of the most recent data showed the huge amount of damage being done in regards to player retention by wardecs. I would also like them to use the new ability to look at and revisit issues that have been raised in the past. We do need the actual data from CCP to help direct the discussion in a productive direction, something that the devs have been extremely reluctant to do in the past.

(Brisc Rubal) #432

It was player activity. The data didn’t seem to indicate that these players were just leaving the corp - they were not logging in to the game anymore.

(Tipa Riot) #433

We know the actual problem, you just decided to ignore everything said about it. I can assure you from personal experience with victims, that the results presented in the minutes are plausible. I don’t question for a minute that wardecs, as they are now, harm player retention.

Also you know my solution proposal, make wardecs free-for-all on the defender side with public announcement. This way attackers can’t just cherry pick and be safe from surprising third parties. Like in any other parts of New Eden.

My reasoning is, that you can’t force people to fight, but maybe bring people who want to fight back to highsec.

Thanks Brisc for clarifying again.

(Manwithdog) #434

I would like to propose a change to the bounty system to make it serve a purpose.

For Starters You may only place a bounty on someone under 2 circumstances , Either because the character in question is a criminal with -5 status which should be fair game.

The other is that you have a Kill right on the player in question , the bounty should only be valid whilst the kill right is active and is refunded once the kill right ends or the kill is bought by another character. The Kill right should be for Killing a Innocent player , not for killing suspects. If the bounty is claimed then no refunds of course

Now the biggest issue would be the bounty scam where a player will use a alt to destroy his ship to claim the bounty . This can be avoided by 1st voiding all insurance on the ship that was destroyed and then only 25% of the ship hull Plus mods is paid out to the bounty hunter. And finally the character with the bounty is charged 10% of the ships and mods destroyed which is paid to concord.

Not perfect I know but at least it would serve as annoyance to pirates and gankers ,

(Ima Wreckyou) #435

Thanks for clarifying

Why do you project those things onto me. I was very clear with my questions. Do you have a problem with people asking questions because something wasn’t clear? I agree that if there is a problem as already mentioned there has something to be done. Unlike the carebears in the past I will not dismiss the facts just because I don’t like them but at least I want to know for sure what exactly they talked about. OK?

Brisk seemed to have clarified it now. And I have already seen your proposal and have no idea why if you think this would even remotely work if the almost equal defender thing didn’t work.

(Tipa Riot) #436

No, but we had that exact same discussion a couple of days ago with Brisc giving the exact same answer, and today I see it’s going again …

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #437

I think @Brisc_Rubal may have said they are looking at scrapping bounty system since it puts a lot of stress on the servers… not word for word on what he said though.

(Ima Wreckyou) #438

He did not understand my question and the answer he gave was more confusing than helpful, until yesterday and I consider it answered now. I still would really like to get more details about the numbers but he will not be able to deliver that and I understand that.

If the situation is this dire I very much agree that something has to be done. I hope I don’t have to tell you that just removing wardecs leads to all sorts of issues and is in my opinion not an option. And I still don’t think we have enough information about the reasons for the issue to actually discuss a solution. I can’t believe this was an issue for 15 years and just suddenly they had the idea to look at those numbers.

(Yiole Gionglao) #439

We don’t know when CCP looked at the issue nor why, but my gut feeling is that it’s related to the downward trend of new character creation. When players stop investing in the future of the game, that’s when you know that ■■■■ is about to hit the fan.

Specially after playing the F2P card, as one side effect of it it’s emptying the pool of potential future players.

(Faylee Freir) #440

I agree and I brought up the fact that I think it shows neglect. I mean you can have a player count go from 40-50k to where we are now and not start digging or asking questions.

I think for the most part even the grimiest ganker and ruthless extortionist knows that we need people playing the game in order for us to have “targets”.

(Faylee Freir) #441

CCP Falcon came into the Wardec Project Discord a number of months ago asking questions about who were the big names in wardecs among other questions.

I assume this is when they started gathering data on it.

(darkestkhan Eriker) #442

For real? He had to ask about two big names? Granted, there are some more but it is Marmite Collective and PIRAT that are the 2 big fishes. Are CCP devs even playing the game?

(Faylee Freir) #443

Yeah I dunno. I was a bit flabbergasted myself. He’s still in the Discord but I’m sure he doesn’t read it. I will admit there’s been a lot of shitfests in there, but a lot of good discussion has occurred as well where experienced people on both sides identify issues and give their opinions on how to balance things.

It’s this feedback that I think is important for CCP to consider as well as from other sources. Just my opinion though.