Lol. I have run a few sites. And yeah, the new system is tough and annoying. Rats warping off and back on - no problem. Endless waves of webbing frigates- sure. Not killing the BC/BS fast enough results all rats warping off - wtf. Guess I will bring a long point next time.
you have a lot to say about empire war for an npc corp player living in null sec
https://evewho.com/pilot/Coralas/
This is answered in the quote above. I wouldn’t have even bothered replying here, but its a question addressed to me.
I don’t mind if CCP puts in restrictions on offensive corp hopping - ie it does not barricade out the feature I’d like to see put in, but that will just lead VMG or whoever to invest in SP or redistribute their SP to alts to make it all work regardless, which may lead CCP to decide its a waste of time.
Neutral logi is a pretty difficult problem to fix. CCP has probably heard the ‘fix neutral logi’ cry a thousand times now without doing it, and again its a feature change that can be entirely unrelated to win conditions on wardecs.
lets make a distinction clear, I care about new players and other forms of small guy just fine. i’m routinely fleeted with fresh alphas from CAS.
I don’t care about 5 man corps. 5 man corps with structures in space are the corporate equivalent of flying a cargo tanked freighter, and are going to be one of the reasons events like unopposed structure bashes occur.
We go out into space with an equal or larger force quite often and lose, its not a surprise to me to see the view from the flipside.
The same people that insert spies for spying, the same people that pad killboards by shooting their alts shuttles etc.
This is actually a quite reasonable point, even if it won’t happen often. Should deadlocked or lost wars be able to flipped to a win by a spy, despite doing no actual damage to the target corp. ie insert a spy and then pretty much you can pay-win the war if you decide its necessary, no matter how badly you lost the actual fighting. Not only that, the value can be manipulated, and you can break up the load to ensure that a lot of it drops.
You are going to have to accept that I see that as a problem, just as I can accept that you don’t. It is an inherent artifact of designing a war win condition that is half tag and half hide and seek, in a game where logging off is a perfect implementation of hide.
I’ve noted your remarkable contribution of repeating some facts I’ve already posted in this thread Ralph, and await your next contribution.
wat™
no it isnt, logi should be in house .<-----enphasis on the period.
and again, you have been CAS since day 1 , what could you possibly have to contribute to a discussion on war?
Edit : damn post history doesn’t post like it used to
elaborate please
ok, I’ve seen enough to doubt you intend being constructive, so I’m not going to reply to you further. that is my prerogative, hope you are not insulted that I don’t want to play your version of the forum game.
not offended in the slightest love,
if you’re not willing or able to explain yourself thats fine
Steve,
I love what you do on the CSM and how you are trying to flesh out a mechanic here that is better than what currently exists. I think what you are talking about is experiencing a lot of friction because of the additional ‘baggage’ your idea has. That is not to say it has no merit, only that increased complication will always create increased resistance.
I hope people reading this see beyond the discussion of implementation specifics and look at what the desired end result is.
This is a huge issue for the health of the game and not only limited to wars. The recent incidents involving bot driven super carriers undermine the confidence people have in the game and decreases the value of legitimate contributions. Player retention must be improved and changing war declaration mechanics is simply one means to achieve that desired result.
The feedback on this thread has some very good suggestions of using a tiered corporation experience which could be roughly divide players into:-
No Corporation → Players who do not care to join a corp and do their own thing.
Social Corporation → Players who would like to do group stuff with others under a ‘corporate’ identity but do not wish to be bothered by the mechanics of a war declaration
Aggressive Corporation → Players who would like to do group stuff and want to participate in the war declaration mechanic in all of its current forms
Sovereignty Alliance Corporation → Players who would like to do group stuff including null sovereignty warfare
The current game mechanics currently cater for the first and last two desired play styles, it simply needs to cater for the second.
Friendly Fire is a relatively new mechanic which is “Tick A Box” level implementation. As a first iteration, why not “Tick A Box” for “Social Corporation” and with that setting define some restrictions consummate with the level of protection gained?
For example a player in an NPC corporation has a fixed %11 tax rate and can’t deploy structures. These restrictions seem very good starting candidates for a “Social Corporation”, there are probably more like maximum player membership limitations and the inability to become/join an Alliance.
This is not going to achieve everything everyone wants but it would be a small iteration on what currently exists rather than introducing anything entirely new, perhaps it would be an improvement enough that other issues on balance become more important to improve and further iteration looked at later.
2 Likes
Deployable structures won’t work for war decs period, think people forget it takes minimum of a week to take down a high sec citadel. Don’t fancy griding two timers for someone to pop our beacon or whatever it maybe.
Lord Raz & co are the most knowledgeable when it comes to war decs, they have been hashing this subject out for over a year so don’t act so surprised that they’re fed up of hearing the same silly suggestions which have been discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed. Such as structures & increasing war dec costs.
Please understand, we know your concerns about the war mechanics & player retention but suggestions need to be fair on either side of the fence.
1 Like
CSM Summit Notes, Page 58
“Sort asks about a separate hangar on the citadels for modules to allow gunners to quickly fit it without needing to be in the corporation. Fozzie says this will be considered as he is not sure how difficult hangar and other inventory additions would be to the current structure system.”
Adapt the T3 cruiser subsystem bay. Give the ability to swap modules in and out, but not remove.
CSM Summit Notes, Page 32
"Noobman then brings up transferring structure ownership, which is a very instant process. Some additional safety measures would be appreciated.
A topic on loyalty came up, with transferring structure ownerships to enemy coalitions. There are means to prevent this from occurring already through albeit convoluted mechanics. "
Convoluted Mechanics? Explain or include a link as to how a modicum of protection can be gained against the irrevocable action of transferring a structure.
CSM Notes, Page 58
“Sort goes on to ask about the corporate roles. Mimic says that there has been a lot of clean up and goes back to the division question saying it’s very integrated to the inventory window and CCP Fozzie chimes in that this is not a trivial issue, but is something they’d want to look into.”
Corporate roles need to be much more granular and flexible. Give the ability to configure corporation industry roles that allow jobs to be run without the input, blueprint or output of the job, nor other jobs be at risk of theft or cancellation. Make changes to painful aspects of these old mechanics that make life easier. The recent update to allow citadel structures to be refuelled by gunnery rights would have not been nearly as useful had it allowed gunners to remove fuel as well as add it, especially more so with Upwell 2.0 low power mechanics.
CSM Summit Notes, Page 32 (continued)
“This started a very long discussion about trust in EVE and “This is EVE”. People ended up agreeing to disagree on not adding a new mechanic to prevent sabotage.”
EVE is not the environment it was in 2003. EVE can and must be able to change. The precedent of asset protection is clearly seen in how blueprints can be locked and unlocked through voting mechanics. Why is it so difficult to attain the same level of control over other corporate assets? Take the next issue from the CSM notes:-
CSM Notes, Page 13
“The value of accounts has increased due to skill points becoming a commodity, in addition to ISK and assets. Due to the accounts being accessed “legitimately” with correct credentials due to the e-mail address being compromised, it is difficult to defend against. Purchased ISK is now coming in from these accessed accounts, rather than bot farms.”
2FA/MFA, RSA tokens, one-time-pads, master accounts, all to protect a player accounts. The amount of work to achieve this extra security must surely be non-trivial, yet the ability to stop corp assets/structures being stolen or transferred with an extension of the existing locking mechanic is something that ‘we will agree to disagree’ on ?
Agreeing to disagree does not push the game forward, it does not serve the community nor is it a solution to the problem.
With regard to the Corporate Roles.
The Corporate Management back end has never (to my knowledge) been touched or updated in Eve’s History. Yes there have been UI tweaks and UI upgrades but what is behind that? Never
When POS are cut out (and POS came in after the game launched) the Corporate Management stuff is the last remaining “old code” to refactor.
The fact that it is so important and critical to the day to day operations of the majority of the players means that in my opinion CCP will never touch it. They daren’t.
So… I’m just gonna try and wrap this up abit, our original discussion has lost its context, so no point of dragging it out.
If you or anyone wants to discuss the finer things of different mechanic changes you’re welcome to join us on discord in the “Wardec-Project”
I still think limiting/tying wardecs to structure is a very BAD thing and would make ccp use a shitload of dev time to make a small new jesus feature that are expected to “solve everything” but then fail, like history have shown us.
Lets go the Crucible way instead. Iterate on the small things that are ■■■■■■ up and has been for years, make the core game better.
And as for wardecs in general they havent changed mechanicly since CCP did their rewamp of it in 2012. How the same mechanic are missused is another thing. Thats a result of no iterations for years + other unrelated mechanics introduced/removed without any considerations for the mechanics already in place.
I fear this will be the case if they try again.
Oh, and btw, last time they “fixed” wardecs was because of dec shields and war shedding.
And resulted in this.
With the changes currently in the pipeline we do realize that wars become a bit more hardcore and harder to avoid. But the line that is being drawn in the sand here is that if you’re in a player run corporation, then war is something you must be prepared to tackle. The ally system and the surrender with enforced peace do give options beside just duking it out (or docking for a week), but if you absolutely do not want to be war decced, then the only option right now is to be in a NPC corp.
Now since wardecs are an issue for new players and retention more than suicide ganks(?)…
Why not look at npc corps instead of nerfing wardecs into submission. Social corps is a viable solution for that if done correctly. The only thing that worry me with social corps is that it would over time lead to structures only owned by 1 man holding corporations and no one defending them. Just like it would if they make so that you cant dec corporations without structures.
4 Likes
if you are going to attempt to wrap things up, then don’t do it by adding new points, otherwise you just start new arguments :
1 - CCP have been working on structures forever, and
2 - this new group of CCP people supposedly make maintainable reusable code. Unless they are lying it should not be much effort to add it.
3 - A jesus feature is not small
4 - nobody expects everyone to use this feature, which inherently makes it not a jesus feature.
5 - there has to be some upside for both sides in a war.
6 - I still think tying wars to isk efficiency is far worse than tying it to a structure - its just formatting the war evermore towards what the wardeccer wants.
Why would I leave CAS corp, that has 300 - 1000 people in it and about 50 people I know and occasionally play the game with to start a new social corp, to gain no new useful ingame feature - a social corp is just a chat channel, with the insane disadvantage of kicking me out of the most useful social chat channel I currently have.
Not only that, the corp is then stuck either way - either the corp can’t become a non social corp without automatically turning its members into wardeccable players, or it can never become a non social corp, which means we’d have drop corp and start again if the function of the corp was to change.
but if you actually asked a starter corp player.
The number one thing that could be done to fix starter corps would be to remove failcorps. ie when you leave a player corp, you go back into the starter corp, not into the scope etc. So you can actually try a player corp without it being a permanent decision to leave the starter. Landing in the failcorps is a very disappointing and unexpected event for new players, and one which we have to warn them is a consequence of making a mistake when choosing a player corp, which leads to people not trying them.
1 - And it got us where?
2 - They supposedly did that with crimewatch and war mechanics in 2012 too
3, 4 - ok, remove “jesus” and read it again if it bugs you that much.
5 - Name a war that has had a upside for both sides. I’m sure the pasifists have a good time being pushed around in 0.0.
6 - Can we agree to disagree on that point?
Maybe some of those 300-1000 people in CAS (or any other existing npc corp) dont like the atmosphere or specific persons in the corp their stuck in atm.
Social corps would make it so they have the same safety they have in CAS + their own name and logo, but in a environment they choose with their friends.
If they choose to do the same now, they are on the other side of the line in the sand ccp drew back in 2012.
then they ignore corp chat for a while, leave the corp or block the persons they don’t like.
I am in several chat channels with my friends, which is logically equivalent to being in several social corps at once.
This isn’t about chat channels, this is about being able to engage in a group activity under a shared identity without having to deal with game mechanics that are resulting in players logging off and disengaging from EVE.
The difference between a player channel and NPC Corp channels is ‘consent’.
CSM Notes, Page 74
“Aryth and Sort note that the anomaly timer nerf for belts would result in the miners simply logging off when the belts are gone. They question mechanics that essentially forced people to log off. The anomaly nerf being looked into would allow players to be logged in for longer and create more activity.”
and as previously quoted
The two activities could be no further apart in origin, yet share the common perception that a player feels ‘forced’ to log off as their best course of action. How this problem is addressed by CCP is not nearly as important as WHEN this problem is given due attention.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.