CSM 13 - High Sec Issues/Suggestions/Ideas

csm
high-sec

(Penance Toralen) #464

When CCP Rise made a positive statement regarding suicide ganking, it is was immediately enshrined as holy writ. It was not challenged at all to the degree that the war-dec announcement has received. You were not given an actual database to play around in, just some graphs. (86%, 13% and 1% across an active 80,000). I do not question the data, I question the conclusion that 1% illegal is a validation. I recall when CCP Soundwave said that “suicide ganking was not intended to profitable” - comments ranged from “I do not believe he said that” to calls for his head. (and before someone mentions “Freighters” this comment was specific in relation to the July 2012 barge update).

Without “data” it looks when you hear some that fits your narrative - affirmation and high-fives all round. But if it is otherwise: it should be signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

And seriously - the “carebear” crutch? Nice segue to ad hominem. It was only ever a “big lie” - but I guess you cannot see that without a graph either. Oh wait, Quant did give graphs back in 2015. Guess there is no helping you then.


(Brisc Rubal) #465

Sure. But we can make it harder to abuse.

Which is what they’re working on.


(Ima Wreckyou) #466

This is completely different as CCP showed multiple times directly the conclusions of their studies. Here we don’t have anything at all from CCP, just some written down reactions from the CSM reading something.

I do not question what CCP said, but the interpretation of the CSM who as you can see in this very thread are not even sure themselves what this was all about.

And what is the definition of “abuse” when it comes to wardecs? And how would they do that? By making it more shitty, so no one uses it anymore? By making it more expensive so most can’t afford it? How is any of this good for the game?


(Tipa Riot) #467

Yeah, this does not look like a complete rewrite but some bandaid fix not touching the core mechanic, which IMO would be necessary.


(Dom Arkaral) #468

Don’t forget that the numbers were
S T A R K
T _T
A__A
R____R
K_____K


(Ima Wreckyou) #469

Oh god… how STARK it was!!!


(Brisc Rubal) #470

Wardecs are a mechanic that almost universally people agree is broken and needs to be fixed. Even you guys want fixes. So they’re finally doing it. That’s good for the game. Instead of freaking out about the reasons why they’re doing it, you all would be better spent lobbying for specific changes you want.

That’s the long term plan. They are doing this in two parts, as was noted at Vegas - structures as a band aid, longer term solution next spring.

I’ve told you guys all this before - you’ve had a good run. Things are changing. You can either stand around screaming about how the changes suck before they’ve even been announced, or you can work to try to make the changes something you all can live with. Your choice. Sitting around memeing about how stark the numbers are may amuse the four of you in your discord, but it isn’t going to change anything that’s happening.

Up to you guys whether you help fix this, or you get steamrolled.


(Ima Wreckyou) #471

You should already know that I put my ideas forward multiple times. And yes I agree that there needs to be a rework. But what currently is talked about on CSM and CCP levels are just band aids and not even a hint about what the direction of a solution could look like.

My ideas are posted in a document in the wardec discord. I have never even gotten any feedback except the usual talking point that never even address anything of what I have written down. So what are you actually meaning with “help fix this”? I have all the interest in keeping EVE an interesting game to play.

But it seems from my perspective the “solutions” you guys discuss all go into the direction of “well we don’t like what’s happening, so we change this, disable this, remove this so the thing we don’t like is no longer possible” instead of adding something that might change the meta in a positive way and not just remove gameplay.


(Brisc Rubal) #472

CCP is still actively working on their plan. We won’t get more details until the details are ready for release. This is how this stuff always works.

I’ve given you guys feedback on that document.

Victory conditions is removing gameplay? Finding a plausible carrot to get defenders to actually undock and fight is removing gameplay? These are things that almost everybody has argued in favor of.

You guys want to be taken seriously, you need to take the other side’s opinions seriously. I don’t think anybody, except Faylee, has done that.


(Dom Arkaral) #473

Conditions take away freedom and options to achieve goals

You want the opposite.
You want people to have the freedom to achieve their goals without any artificial limitations


(Brisc Rubal) #474

Victory conditions give both sides goals. Right now, the goals are amorphous, if they even exist. There need to be ways to shut the war off besides waiting 7 days.


(Dom Arkaral) #475

Wars were put in so you could dec whoever for whatever reason

Putting goals in there removes the dec whoever for whatever reason
As does the upcoming you can only dec people with structures

And there are currently ways to end a war early
Most notably surrendering for a negotiated amount of isk, disband corps, move in another area, drop corp and so forth

You should do a lot more wars before deciding for those who do wars for a living


(Brisc Rubal) #476

And you should listen more and stop talking like “disbanding corps” or “moving to another area” or “dropping corp” is something that players think is easy to do or want to do just to get around a war dec. That’s absurd.

“There’s an easy cure for a hangnail, just cut your arm off. Fixed.”

Come on.

There has to be a way for defenders to win a war and turn it off early that doesn’t involve logging off or blowing up their corps. You guys don’t seem to get how damaging that is to somebody in a social game.

But I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said a thousand times, and if you all don’t get it by now, me wasting my breath explaining it again isn’t going to change anything.


(Tipa Riot) #477

That’s OK. But IMO artificial victory conditions and restrictions are not part of a good solution. This is not sandbox thinking. Open wars up for public third partying on the defenders side, limit it to one region/constellation if you want. If one decides to wardec a corp, and the corp “cries” for help, everybody should be able to shoot the aggressors freely joining the war for a set period of time.


(Dom Arkaral) #478

Tell me Brisc
What happens if the defender doesn’t care about logging in the second they get the wardec mail?
If you try to cater to people that stop playing, you’re not helping the game staying active lol. You’re literally making it worse by having both sides not doing anything.

This tourniquet you guys are trying to implement may help stop the bleeding temporarily, sure. But if you leave it on for too long without actually knowing why you put it there in the first place, you’ll end up amputating…

A tourniquet is not a solution, just like taking away the tools we had before. It just made things worse enough (the stark numbers, remember them?)


(Brisc Rubal) #479

When the meta for dealing with war decs is to not log in for seven days, that’s a bad mechanic. And you guys all know that this is what happens in most wars.

Your solution is to say “well, at least the attackers are still logging in.” And my response to that is that a tiny number of attackers are holding a much larger number of defenders hostage, and that makes it a bad mechanic. I would rather have a mechanic that gets both sides to keep logging in.

I don’t know how many times I need to repeat the December structure change is the band aid, and the full rework is coming in the spring before you guys actually accept that.

I’m sure you’ll get high fives from the other four dudes that you worked in another “stark” joke here, though.


(Dom Arkaral) #480

They decide to be hostages
Nothing’s preventing them from getting friends/other corps to go fight.
Nothing’s preventing them to go live in some system not close to the Hubs.

Remind me, what happened when your alliance decced CODE.?

Did they suddenly log off?
No, they hired mercs (like anyone can) and made you guys look worse than you already are.

It’s almost like you know this won’t change a thing so you can then ask CCP to Nerf wars even more :joy:


(Brisc Rubal) #481

Blaming the victim isn’t the best look.

/eyeroll

I’ve already said the data would justify removing them completely.


(Yiole Gionglao) #482

What has brought us here is CCP’s realization that too many players will rather stop playing than being under wardec. What they want is a enjoyable game without wardecs. If they get that game by dropping corp, they keep playing. If they can’t find a way to have it without stop playing, they stop playing and that’s forever.

So, what is CCP trying to address? People not wanting to PvP? Well, that people exists. If CCP wants their money, they must have it their way. There is only one way in which wardecs accomodate that kind of customer: No. Effin. Wardecs.

Some players claim that those players are better out. But it’s up to CCP to decide wheter they want that money or not. Because nobody has ever suggested “oh, let’s pay 25 bucks a month so CCP can stay in business and we can keep our 2003 game paying for its 2018 costs”.

All solutions I’ve read will only work if people wants to PvP. But the issue is not this. The issue is people who don’t want to PvP. CCP needs them, EVE Online needs them, and PvPrs need them.

The only things that wardecs accomplish are to let people shoot each other without CONCORD intervention, and to let people shoot structures (which rarely happens anyway).

So there’s two “needs” to cover with wardecs:

  • people shoot each other voluntarily
  • structures get removed without owner consent

Everything else it’s just a waste of time. Goals? Rewards? Punishments? Add intricate mechanics aimed at people who couldn’t figure they could just drop corp instead of stop playing EVE? That’s bullsh*t. A effin waste of time. 1% of the player base might use the new wardec mechanic after CCP spends a lot of effort to not remove a mechanic that no longer has a place.

Want a consensual war? The system works already.
Want to forcefully remove structures? Wardec them and only them.

Or, since removing structures without capitals is a PITA, hand it over to the game. The moment the structure owner is moved to the long term storage (aka 90 days aka when he’s officially inactive) the structure is magically "stored"and all 3rd party contents are transferred to the nearest NPC station. That would remove the clutter of inactive strcutures and would ease the job of removing those who some might (occasionally) put a fight for.

EVE Online doesn’t neds non-consensual free ganking passes. They were a thing while the game was large and thriving, but now they are just a way to shoot CCP’s foot.

KISS: only mutual wars and structure wardecs PLUS authomated temporary removal of inactive structures.

Everything else, including whatever CCP will implement to acclaiming success among 1% of the player base, will be a waste of time. A false issue in denial of reality: when given the chance to stop playing or be forced to PvP 24/7, people stops playing. Time to get real… or charge the survivors with the actual price of the game as they like it.


(Yiole Gionglao) #483

You make sure that they:

a) don’t get a wardec mail aka remove non-consensual wardecs
b) make sure they only get that email when there is a TRUE NECESSITY for it and the game will be worse without that mechanic than without that player

Players keep the game alive, not wardecs.