So in other words, the root cause is that people might want to start this game with other friends and play together? I really don’t see how that can be a problem at all.
Well, joining a corp doesn’t give you any benefit in the game actually. It enables you to do certain things - and those should have tradeoffs. Like declaring war for example, that should come with some real tradeoffs…
Because people mix those things up and complain they wanna have their free reasoning behind a war. They don’t want a war declareable just with the reason the game gives them. And I tried to explain that it doesn’t. Because goals and reasons are not the same.
How do you know you lost your 1v1 at the sun? Usually because you got a killmail. Why is that? Couldn’t players just define who won? Yes, they may do so - but the game gives them some tools at hand to do that. Like a killmail that shows the value of the ship that died etc.
Is that still sandbox? Yes it is.
And CCP are just humans. What makes them so superior when it comes to EVE mechanics and data? Simple: They have the insight. They have access to the code and data that is relevant. The CMS has also some (limited) access to such data, as they are offered this by CCP. Do believe they do not know more than the average player is what is really the foolish point of view.
If a CSM member claims something he might know due to his position, I tend to trust him on that until someone with more superior insight (CCP for example) tells otherwise. It wouldn’t make sense not to trust them on such things…
According to you, if it’s driving people out the game then it needs looking at.
And more people leave the game from boredom, complexity and lack of direction than wardecs or ganking.
I don’t have a problem with people starting a corp when they are new or even a bunch of new players starting together. I have a problem with people who start a corp when they are new and invite others in and ruin their experience because they don’t know what they are doing. I have a problem with people who start a corp and complain about being decced (even though it says everywhere that when you are in a corp you can be decced).
Well which is it? You were talking about hangar, etc. and how that quitting affects one’s game. Are you one of those players who wants to eat their cake and still have it too? Here is what you wrote,
And just quitting a corp to avoid a wardec actually affects your game. You can’t use the hangar anymore, you have different tax, standings etc - bust most important it feels like you leave the poeple you wanted to play with.
Those look like benefits to me…what you wrote implies they are benefits. Pick one, benefit or not.
You still haven’t explained why it is important. And so what if goals and reasons are the same. Suppose my reason for deccing you is X…do you really care? In the end I am going to be able to shoot you and you me. And if you want to know…why not email the player in game and ask.
Who cares and what relevance does this have for war decs which is another mechanic?
Yes, but “the game” doesn’t give a ■■■■. You are treating the game as if it is a person; it isn’t. The game is what results from the code, the Devs, and us players each doing our things. To pretend that amalgam actually gives a ■■■■ about you or me or that war is a category error.
You might care, the guys deccing you might care, but that is not “the game”. Figure this stuff out on your own. That is the nice thing about this game…you figure this stuff out with those you interact with.
Yes, they are people, but they also have data. Much more of it than we do. They have tried to validate this notion that combat pushes out players, particularly new players and guess what…they can’t. They’ve looked and looked and looked. There was a post from a Dev on the old forums to this effect. Maybe somebody will have a link and will post it.
This is also the clarion call of most people wanting to change a given mechanic. “Oh and it drives away new players!” It is basically EVE Online’s version of “Think of the children!!!”
Not really, they get to see CPP’s ideas ahead of us and can offer some feedback. That’s it.
Edit:
Here is the link I referenced.
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.–CCP Rise
So why not make a new wardec mechanic that is even less boring and has some directions build in? ^^
It CAN benefit you, but it doesn’t have to. Paying tax is not a benefit in itself, only if you get something out of that money (like structures build by your corp, or whatever). Standings also CAN be beneficial, but they can also have downsides. So it CHANGES your game, but is not necessarily a benefit.
But I do get your point on this. I still think the “balance” is far off when it comes to wardecs.
I don’t know what you expect from me on this. I have explained why I wrote about the difference between reasons and goals. If you don’t find it important, than maybe it is not to you. Some people confused this and drew the wrong conclusions. I tried to clarify. If you don’t care, then maybe just drop it.
The connected is drawn with the next paragraph I wrote.
No, I don’t. If you still haven’t understood what I meant, I say it again:
The game can tell you about an outcome of a “happening” without destroying the concept of a sandbox. Like a small fight between a couple of ships. The game shows killmails for anything lost and you can take those to see who won or lost. I like to have a similar concept copied to wardecs, because I think it is important people have a tool to see if a war was succesful or not - and I think it is important for defenders to be able to win over the attackers. To achieve this, it is easier for the game to be able to recognize a winner.
No, it is more. But we don’t have to discuss this. I find the CSM trustworthy on such things. You obviously don’t. Fine.
I can’t remember reading anything about wardecs when it comes to that. As far as I know, this was about ganking and griefing and to a certain degree about scams. And I totally understand that. The important part is, that the wardec itself doesn’t drive you out of the game. It is how people react to it because they don’t know another way to do so. In my opinion, if a mechanic does that on a scale where you can see a pattern it is “broken”.
Sometimes you have to use mechanics to influence how players react and use certain tools in the sandbox. Consider it balancing if that suits you better…
I don’t see anything that will make war decs less boring. The issue is you can’t make any player participate in a war dec if they do not want too. And those who do not want too typically do not want too because they have zero interest in ship-to-ship PvP. If they could, they’d have negative interest in it.
Okay, clarification noted, but it does change what you wrote earlier IMO.
I wen’t back and re-read what you wrote and I don’t really see the connection. A dual is a different mechanic than a war dec so…I’m not seeing the connection. War decs is a rather open ended mechanic. As you note it can be for any reason…and have any goal. So why care about goals? Why not just leave it up to the players.
First…careful with the reification regarding the game. The game doesn’t tell us much of anything. People do things. For kill mails that is typically done by people. Even posting a killmail in fleet is not done by “the game” but by a player.
Second, I fail to see the benefit here. I really don’t. I don’t care when some war in HS is concluded who won or lost. The players in the war dec may care, but nobody else really does. Do we really need to set up something in game to fetishize war decs like we do killmails?
And…the game…recognize winners? You keep treating “the game” as if it is a sentient entity. It isn’t. “The game” does not care who won or lost. The game will go on irrespective of who wins or loses.
There have been threads arguing that war decs is a type of griefing.
I would not be surprised if Rise has looked at the effects of war decs on player retention.
BTW, let me clarify this “the game does/tells/etc. us…” thing.
“The game” is not doing things. The game is not telling us stuff. The players are and to some extent the Devs. This is the same error people make when they say, “The market will do…” The market is not a thing. The “market” is the result of people doing things…interacting. Buying, selling, etc. The result are prices and those prices contain information and are helpful. But they are not the result of “the market” but of the people that actually are doing things. At best the market is a crude type of shorthand for what is really going on.
It is the same thing with “the game”. What really makes “the game” “the game” are the players out there doing things. There is nothing without the players and other people who are doing things. So the idea that “the game” is going to do X is misleading. The game isn’t going to do X. The players (and maybe the devs) are going to do things that allow X to emerge. So the whole idea of “the game” telling us something is restrictive and counter productive. Let the players worry about what is happening in the game as it affects them.
You have a big misconception here. And comparing “the game” to “the market” really shows it.
The game DOES things. Not as a human being, but as a construct of code. If you shoot someone in EVE Online hard enough “the game” does show you a killmail for example. That is not done by people, that is the game(-code) doing things. What people do with the information is up to them, sure. But the killmail will be created, if you like it or not. That is not up to any player (or dev).
The same goes for any mechanic. The mechanic will work in a certain way, no matter what the people like how it should react. On top of that, you then have HOW people interact and react to the given mechanics and rules.
Yes, and every fleetfight is boring because I have to join a fleet, which isn’t an exciting thing to do… some “less entertaining” things can still lead to fun. Buying items might not be as fun as flying with your ship, but it is still necessary…
Goals. Winners/Loosers and the motivation to actually fight, which concludes from both if well done.
I don’t know why you are mentioning a dual on the goal/reason topic. Maybe we are referring to different quotes here? Dunno…
I would draw a fine line there. But I can understand how people make that connection of course. Would be interesting to see CCP saying something about this. If the CSM is right, there will be some information in the upcoming summits.
Nevertheless if the “driving players out” is true or not, the wardec mechanic could need an overhaul that encourages fighting a lot more. At least that’s my opinion.
Right, but i don’t have to tell the game what the fleet is for and what the goals of the fleet are. And i don’t want the game to tell me if the fleet was a success or not. In the same way i don’t want to have to tell the game what the goals of my corp are and whether I’ve been successful in that or what the goal of my ship fitting is and whether it has succeeded.
And you actually don’t have to join a fleet to be in a big fight. It merely facilitates some areas of group play.
That is a player doing something, not the game. The game is merely the environment and without players nothing is going to happen. Or to put it differently, there is no “shooting” going on without the players. And even that environment is created by people, the devs, doing things.
In short your talk of “the game” is fundamentally wrong.
Okay…what part of some players do not want to engage in ship-to-ship PvP at all. Ever. Do you not get? Go read Mike Voidstar’s posts around the forums. There is literally nothing you can do to get him to engage in ship-to-ship PvP, or as he puts it “he does not want to be someone else’s content.”
You said a 1-v-1 at the sun. I took that to mean a dual at the sun. Frankly, I don’t see what killmails have to do with war decs in that a war dec can be about anything. Early on me and some buddies ended up in a war dec because one of my buddies mouthed off in local.
Yes, being confused by facts is annoying.
FFS, they already did and I linked it. Holy mother ■■■■…
I honestly believe this is not a mechanic you cannot fix. Those who are fine with ship-to-ship PvP do not mind war decs and eventually join war dec corps, move on to LS or even NS or maybe WHs. Those who are not fine with ship-to-ship PvP will be here on the forums whining and bitching.
Here read these posts from the old forums, they’ll help you grasp the problem,
Main take away:
In short, the issue with war-decs is that they are non-consensual PvP in a way that, for example, a war between two 0.0 alliances isn’t. The 0.0 guys may complain about blobs or coalitions or cloaky camping or whatever, but that’s just tactics. They’re not complaining about the concept of another entity shooting at them at all. Wardecs on the other hand, typically involve a defender who doesn’t want to engage in combat PvP at all . How can you reconcile that desire with the desire for other players to play a FFA PvP game? The War Bond addresses the fig-leaf justifications that both sides put up. Deccers constantly complain that defenders can just quite their corps and reform another, risking nothing and losing nothing but a name. Defenders complain that they have no way to use their playstyle to protect themselves, and that the wardeccers commit nothing and take no real risks.
And yet when offered a mechanism that addresses these complaints, neither of them like it. In true EVE style, each want the other to do all the adapting.
That last sentence is the key. So I’ll repeat it with emphasis, In true EVE style, each want the other to do all the adapting.
In short, I don’t think this is a mechanic you can “fix” where both sides will be happy.
I’d go even further…“the game” can’t make these determinations. This is reification. Making something concrete in this case making the game like a person that decides or acts. “The game” does not act. Players act. Devs act. “The game” largely does not act. You might go out on a fleet and lose 3x what the enemy has lost but if you achieved an objective that made that loss worthwhile you “won”. These concepts come from players not from “the game” or from the Devs even.
Well, the player is who shoots. The game gives out a killmail. Of course the game is just the environment and without players nothing happens. But it’s not like it’s only players doing stuff. This is not a rulefree fantasy roleplay game that is just in our minds. This is a game that has rules and mechanics. They ‘react’ to what you do. Certain things you can do, certain things you can’t. That is not up to the players, that is determined by the code. And CCP can (and does) alter that code to balance the rules and things than can happen, to influence player behaviour.
I totally get it. The question remains how many of those “I stay logged out because of wardec” players would be willing, able and interested to fight if the mechanic would encourage them to actually do so? Sure, there will always be people who don’t want pvp and stuff, but I don’t believe this is the standard.
It was an example to point out that the game creates killmails on certain occasions. It was not about the dual or anything. I think you kinda got this into the wrong direction…
Why are you so offensive here? This is totally unnecessary.
Those weren’t facts. We are talking about opinions. And in my opinion there is a difference between the two. If you don’t think so, that is fine - but doesn’t make your opinion magically a fact.
And tried to explain it why I don’t think that the response matches to what I want to know from CCP. I don’t think the “griefing” that is often complained about is the problem. As far as I have seen it, that is usually the part where CCP response to.
I agree on this literally. I believe this mechanic can be fixed.
Yes it is. But it could be understood that my mechanic could be a really good one, and all the complains about it here in the forum just means people don’t want to adapt.
I do believe that some people here are able to look behind that curtain of their own game and see that a new mechanic could actually create a better game for both sides. But those people aren’t many unfortunately.
Also: People don’t have to be happy about a mechanic to make it a good one. There are plenty examples of people bitching about things that actually were very good for them (at least in the long run). I don’t have the illusion that a new wardec mechanic would be loved by everyone from day one. ^^
The game can’t tell you if you “won” an engagement, because there is no way for the game to recongnize this. The game can recognized other things, for example if you got shot and your ship explodes. So if you want the game to be able to recognize the winner of a war (to give our rewards or smth) then you need to have “winning condition” the game can recognize. This is why my approach has these goals.
Of course players could be told by the game they lost the war and still think and feel like they won. What people do with the information the game gives them is up to them. But in a wardec that requires the game to aknowledge the war, it makes sense to me if the game would also be able to aknowledge the result of the war.
If you don’t want to discuss this (anymore), why are you even here? The idea is totally not dead to me. I haven’t heard any arguments so far that would make me give up this approach. Some valid concerns been raised and a lot of input that I can and will use to fine tune some aspects. Mostly I got the impression that, despite my inital attempt of keeping it relatively short, I will need to do a lot more of definition and describing words and meanings and especially problems, that I thought as being ‘clear’ for everyone.
Exactly, and “the game” does not care about the killmail. Nor does it care “who wins the war”. Various subsets of players might care about “who wins the war” but even then both sides could conceivable claim victory.
Of course, which is why I have included the Devs in my comments.
None. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The empty set.
They have absolutely no interest in such things. None.
Actually it is. Think about it. Suppose you have a group of players interested in ship-to-ship PvP. There is nothing you need to change right now. They’d find a way. They’d either link up with other such players and become a war dec corp in their own right, or they’d bunk off to LS or NS maybe WH space. Thus the only ones you have left are those who will never ever have any interest in ship-to-ship PvP. Ever. No matter what you do you will never ever change them. Ever.
See the above. Players who have no issue with PvP do not complain about war decs. Those who do will never ever embrace them no matter what you do. Ever. In fact, you are not their friend…they do not like you. They’d rather you STFU and just argue for more nerfs to HS PvP.
Look, the point is isolating players from the larger games induces them to quit. This includes war decs. Stop being such a knob about this.
No. It is a crap mechanic that once again limits players from the wider game. War decs are a part of the game. Some players will find them exciting and will lead them to war dec corps, LS, NS or even worm holes to varying degrees. You want to limit this. The latter is what will induce players to stay with the game longer.
You mean like war decs costting 5 million against a corp or 50 million against an alliance? Yes, I agree. But then CCP listened to players like you and we got the situation we are in now. Wrong move, IMO.
But we don’t need this. Players already have this. The GSF and the Imperial Legacy coalition just “won” a NS war because the GotG paid off the Imperial Legacy coalition something like 500 billion ISK. Was that the initially intended outcome? Almost surely not. Let the players figure this stuff out. Stop trying to have “the game” figure things out for you.
I like to disagree, based on my personal experience.
I don’t think it is that easy. Sometimes you have to “gently push” people to try out something new. A little bit like some missions leading you into lowsec, to get a first contact and slightly involved with “the outside” of HS.
Well, I know some people who did change…
No U!
People have different opinions, accept it.
No it’s not. Yes, wardecs are part of the game. What is this even an argument of? So are jumpfreigters, and they still got changes. Because that’s what happens in an active developed game. Nobody want’s to remove wardecs, just give them an overhaul. And yes, sometimes a limit can actually embrace something.
Have a look at the very unfamous jump fatigue. Nobody liked it in the beginning and it was a huge limit to the way capitals can be used. Though it still lead to more capital fleets and engagements and a lot healthier capital-meta. A limit doesn’t mean something is taken away all the time. And with “limiting” the wardec mechanics, you could create more engageging gameplay around them.
No, I mean things like jump fatigue. I think that only focusing on the costs of wardecs is one of the biggest mistakes that have been made and is still done by most suggestions on how to fix wardecs.
There is a big difference. In their war, they didn’t need the game to aknowledge a war in the first place. They could just shoot each other. Also, the ability to win or lose (determined by meta-gaming, not that game, that’s right) really affects how the war goes. I do think that is can be a good part if transfered to highsec wars, but the problematic is that there is not enough meta-gaming that it would really work. So why not have the game decide. Those highsec wars are a lot simpler in a lot of ways, so I believe it’s possible to have this done by the game and also give a motivation to the involved sides to actually fight.
Which should be the main focus when it comes to wardec, in my opinion: Enable AND encourage people to fight each other.
You can’t. You are once again thinking of “the game” as being like a person. Stop reifying.
What experience? Players who are willing to engage in PvP in HS, LS, NS or wormholes are not complaining about war decs. Only those who do not want to engage in PvP complain about war decs.
See, and this is another problem of yours. Trying to “push” players into doing things they do not want to do. You are both arrogant and presumptuous. These players can already go “outside” of HS if they wish to. They don’t. Trying to “push”–e.g. force–them won’t work.
If they changed then there is no problem for them.
Yes and yours is the opinion of an arrogant person who thinks they know what is best for others.
See, this is that arrogance again. You think you are smart enough that you can “fix” war decs so that everyone will love them. You can’t. IMO it is impossible and an idiots dream.
Solving the problem of force projection was an entirely different issue than war decs. The problem with war decs is that for a subset of the HS player base they will never ever like war decs. That is not what they want to do. You cannot change war decs to make these players like war decs.
Nobody needs it and “the game” just doesn’t give a ■■■■ and never will. That is your problem. You are treating the game as a person. It isn’t. It is the result of tens of thousands of players interacting. Something like that can never care about where “the game” is going because there is no single consciousness behind it.
You can’t make people fight who do not want to fight at all.
Well, since it was part of the discussion several times. I’d like to quote from the CSM13 Summit. Despite the majority of the CSM seems to be in favour of a mechanic that follows the same goals as I tried to achieve, the basics about wardecs I assumed are the same that CCP has apparently.
Uhhh…really? This is considered a deep insight? I have no idea how long Fozzie has been at CCP but this has always been the case since I started playing in December 2007. Maybe it is time to face up to the fact that those who would be willing to fight back often join war dec corps, go to LS, NS or wormholes. That is players are self-selecting and there is pretty much nothing one can do about it.
Seriously, ask yourself this question, “How can we induce a player who has zero interest in ship-to-ship PvP to willingly engage in ship-to-ship PvP?” And keep in mind this is a voluntary game. That is we all play it because we choose to play it. Nobody can force you to play it. So you have to switch the not-interested-in-combat-PvP-at all-ever player to interested-in-combat-PvP. My guess is doing this via mechanics is a fools errand.
child…
