There are a large number of posts on the forums and elsewhere from the defender community. I feel that the CSM and the Devs have a pretty good handle on what the defender community is concerned about.
As I was that lone voice I can say i continue to hold that torch and I’m confident that both sides have @Brisc_Rubal s ear to push for balanced changes. That said brisc knows his stuff and after taking with him and many others over tha last few years I am confident that good feedback is making it to ccp and good changes focusing on healthy gameplay that is engaging for both sides in a fight with better options for content all around.
*Eyes ccp … please
I listened to the Roundtable.
I can see the intent and I consider laudable, giving a voice to people who feel not listened to.
The problem is not that WarDec community thinks it’s not being listened to (and I think this is what you wanted to address), the problem is that they are very much listened to but their solutions… (I really want to use another word but this is by far the most fitting) suck.
That is the problem right there, not that people don’t listen to them but that they do and everyone is telling them that no, your ideas and concepts are terrible, please stop.
The very problem with the WarDec community has and still is that they do not want to make their peace with that. The fact they would not see that structures would be involved, the fact that they refused to acknowledge the obvious reality that WarDecs were driving people out of he game (judging from the roundtable, some of them still do), and finally refusing to hear the voices that told them what were the problem with their system for close to a decade.
This roundtable shows that, in that it was very… uneventful? The points I heard were very basic, “the sandbox”, “because I feel like it”, “driving out competition”, “it’s costly to be a wardeccer”, etc… and most important, absolutely zero solutions. Zero.
You must have noticed it in their answers to your questions, the points were never about finding a solution, but just justifying or pointing out things.
So, in my case I am a bit disappointed.
This seems like a wasted opportunity to me, because unlike what you said, we never had the “anti”-WarDec community be able to speak, I am banned on the WarDec discord, and not for spamming.
The problem is that Wardeccers need to talk to anti-Wardeccers, and listen too.
I urge you to do something like that, and to choose a neutral ground this time.
It will be a lot more productive, in my opinion.
I know this was for pro wd’ers. My comments were aimed at them, not u Brisc. Basically they were talking as if by forcing engagement or by applying a peace penalty we would have no choice but to comply. This is stupid, if u impose gameplay or penalise my gameplay I have infinite choice outside of eve. I’d be sad to go alpha but I don’t see why I should pay up just to provide content for others.
In my view, just remove wardecs completely, it’s just legalised griefing. If I get killed in low or null then fair enough, risk/return. If I get ganked in hisec then I prob wasn’t paying attention, fair enough. Either way in at most a couple of hours I’m up and running again. If I get wardec’d I can’t operate properly for at least a week. Next time I might decide I can’t be bothered anymore.
My gametime is limited and important to me, not my isk or assets, if I’m not getting enjoyment from it then obviously I’ll go do something else.
updated link as the VOD from twitch previously linked will go bad shortly. Wanted to preserve this for future discussion … due to youtube’s crappy policies for new channels its in a ton of smaller parts on a playlist.
also for note the Twitch VOD has more than 500 views (significantly more than expected)
Yeah sure we’ll take your word over a PIRAT leadership guy
Your are talking in wrong terms, “pro-wardeccers” and “anti-wardeccers” don’t exist … what exist in EvE are predators and sheep. Predators want the tools to hunt the sheep as easy as possible, and sheep want best possible and cheap protection.
You have to think holistically in this categories and find a population balance. Listening to either group brings only limited inside because of the strong bias. IMO the best balance in game is offered by lowsec, so my proposal is to import the mechanics for structure bashes into highsec, and else keep with suicide ganking.
I appreciate the desire to have some kind diplomacy between the two sides, but to be honest, that’s not really my role and I don’t think folks (besides you, obviously) would appreciate me sticking my nose in here.
I don’t disagree with your points - I went into the roundtable with a general expectation of what would be said and the arguments that would be made and for the most part I think they were met. I do think a few workable things were brought up here - locator agents for structures, for example.
As I noted, this was a roundtable for the por-dec community. The anti-dec community has made their voices heard, loudly, and the revamp is largely because of their efforts - had people not been complaining so long and so loudly, CCP would never had done the research that showed them how damaging the system was being to the game and leading them to start this process.
I’m using the terms very, very loosely. Don’t read into anything into the off-hand terminology anything that’s not there.
I’m just gonna put this out there. Ive seen posts about how mining from someone else’s moon mining facility in high sec should give that player a suspect flag because “its not theirs”. So miners complain about having wars declared against them and them being able to be shot free of concord, yet want the same for when others are taking what they believe is there.
It’s highsec - the moons are essentially public resources, regardless of whatever infrastructure you put down. The Empires own the space. Somebody wants to mine your moon, you’re basically SOL. Mine it faster than them, or gank them.
I would strongly oppose any steps to provide a way for highsec moon mining to be done completely safely and with guaranteed results.
I believe one idea worth throwing in would be a some sort of a ratings system. The inspiration for this idea came from the idea of balancing one sided griefing with balanced PVP content for both sides. Don’t get me wrong, PVP is very fun, but only if there is some balance. If one side keeps dominating the fight, it ruins all the fun.
Corps with players with high K:D ratio would get high ratings whereas corps with players with low or no K:D ratio would be assigned to low ratings. So essentially, a scoreboard would be setup to see which corp has the highest PVP ratings. Also, in order to prevent abuse by packing a corp with alts to sit around and do nothing, the ratings should only be calculated from top PVP’ers in each corp/alliance.
So what happens when a corp with high-rating war-decs a corp with low-rating? The low-rating corp should get bonus perks whereas the high-rating war-dec corp should be penalized via game mechanics. However, this should not apply when a low-rating war-dec corp war decs a high-rating corp.
Bonus perks for low-rating war decced corp. Each member should be eligible to use ONE these perks once every 24 hours.
-Ability to request NPC reinforcement to warp scramble / web / E-WAR the all offending war targets in vicinity.
-Ability to turn war target into suspect status.
-Temporary +5 warp core boost for 30 seconds.
Penalties for high-rating war deccing corp. Will remain during the duration of the war.
-Additional wait time to jump gate or dock in station after engaging in aggression with low-rating war targets (like 3 mins instead of 1 min).
-30 second penalty time for warping out after last aggression.
The benefit of this system would be as follows
-People who are not experienced at PVP will be at equal footing against experienced pvp’ers who wants to grief them.
-War decs will be encouraged between parties at equal level of pvp skill, so it won’t end up as one sided massacre. War dec assists AGAINST lower rating corp should be met with same penalties
-Difficult to circumvent this as griefers would literally have to create new chars and splurge money to raise them injectors to get access to low tier ratings without penalties.
-Furthermore, this can be implemented with other ideas such as automatically cancelling war dec if no action occurs for first 3 days.
This is good to hear. In my experience it’s the lazy hisec athanor owners that complain the most. When I’ve identified a moon belt I’d like to mine I usually contact the owner for politeness sake and sometimes contribute to fuel, diplomacy is good for business. On the odd occasion I’ve been asked to leave a belt which is fair enough. Those corps who want to make their moon belt exclusive and are organised (I’m looking at u german corps ) I’ve seen use bumping tactics or bring in their mining fleet using at least one covetor to always mine the rock I’m on. Harrassment works.
Sheep, wolves and sheep dogs.
Shepards you mean? Are you german?
That was stupid.
You can dress it up as much as you want, but if a corp or individual doesn’t want pvp, or simply has no interest in it, it’ll never become “fun”.
Please don’t bring up the “risk averse” insult. Some players simply don’t do pvp, in this or any other game.
I have to laugh reading all these suggestions to get players to pvp, it’ll never happen, those wanting pvp will pvp, those that don’t, won’t, regardless of how many carrots are dangled in front of them.
Why is that so hard to understand? Anyone?
They have been told for years and years it was a massive problem and they just ignored it, heck I’m even sure that I saw dev posts basically saying tough, suck it up.
So I’m wondering if the fact that they’ve been bought out has something to do with it, maybe the new owners were players or were reading the forums and prompted CCP to do something?
EVE is then simply not the game for them
The name of the game is Everyone versus Everyone…