just came to say i disagree with L4’s being moved to low, simply because thats why L5’s were moved to low, risk vs reward. unless you are being paid to run missions, there really isn’t any isk to be made in L4’s compared to other pve aspects like incursions or the abyssals.
Well by all means Mr Expert, come up with a compelling system that does NOT allow anyone to grief or exploit people, i’m all ears 
Well, if they weren’t, they would be in low sec, and people wouldn’t be complaining there is nobody in low sec, i mean, you do understand basic logic right?
And they are, hence why EVE has continued to be dumbed down and simplified and why SP sales happen all the time, they are giving the people that matter, the whales, what they want, i mean it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the walls
Because having what i would like, which is essentially a lawless abyss full of scum and villainy, doesn’t really work when there isn’t anyone left to exploit, ergo you need players to play a multiplayer game for there to be player interaction
So i understand that not everything is going to be grim dark, and that we need an influx of players in order to actually keep the gameplay loop working as intended
1 Like
And they would just have alt corps to hop between for targets, i mean i already found a loophole in that plan within 30 seconds
And you just promote having loads of alts in different corps ready to attack any given target at the drop of a hat, loophole number 2
There is a reason they didn’t do any of these very obvious suggestions
1 Like
Bro, you’re the one who controlled your hole solo for 72 hrs 
Or didn’t you?
One can hope That is kind of my point tho. CCP is only responding to what players scream for. So what people think EVE is and what it actually is, are two very different things sadly.
Ganking is PvP
Mmm I dunno how I feel about that. I feel the autonomy would still contribute to lack of situational awareness.
Yes’m, I definitely want better locator agents LOL.
- Limit active wars to a reasonable amount.
- Determine the war fee based on a comprehensive formula that accounts for the ratio of attackers to defenders, and total skill pool between the two sides.
- War fee is recalculated daily and accounts for changes in membership.
- War fee is put into escrow, with most of it paid out upon the war’s completion either back to the attackers, or to the defenders, based upon damage caused. Handicaps can be applied based on the ratio of attackers to defenders, and total skill pool between the two sides.
- Add a binding win condition/diplomacy system, e.g. if the defenders pay a ransom, the war ends, and the attackers get automatically pulled into future wars as defenders for the entity they ransomed for a set period of time. Make it a free-form contract system with a few such mechanics and money fields, which the two parties can negotiate via interface.
So, for example, My 60-man group of seasoned mercenaries declares war on a group of 30 miners and mission-runners. The war fee is calculated to be 600 million ISK, because the attackers outnumber the defenders, and have more skill points. The internal formula calculates that the defenders need to cause just 200 million ISK in damage to end the war, winning 90% of the war fee. The attackers send an offer to end the war in exchange for monthly payments of 150 million ISK. In exchange, the defenders become their protectorate.
Etc. etc. Many possibilities. I was going to make a big write-up about such a system when Archer was around (I even have a draft made), but I realized that CCP would never do anything like this, and will instead just dumb down the game further, so I didn’t bother. EVE is on its way out, and I’m only here to enjoy the twilight years.
They’re not in low-sec because they’re scared. Go sit in some carebear corporations for a while and you’ll understand.
1 Like
Those are then alts that aren’t part of the main group and aren’t protected by the main group.
Bypassed with alt corps and alt alliances, not a new concept
We already had sliding scales based on the number of active wars, didn’t really deter anyone, that and you can game the system by just using a bunch of low SP alts to negate this
We already had sliding scales, not really going to deter people as they don’t really need to blob them 100 to 1 so those costs aren’t going to matter
So you essentially want to make grief wars free lol yeah i don’t even need to point out how terrible an idea that is
Yeah there was already a surrender system that wasn’t really used because the other party would have to agree to it and there is no benefit, so unless you’re going to be paying billions of ISK thats not going to happen and you can easily bypass getting pulled in to future wars by creating holding corps
Sure, but all terrible ideas that can easily be circumvented entirely, i think you forget the sort of players you’re dealing with, we’ve been gaming the system since day 1, thinking outside the box like this is trivial
They don’t need to be protected thats the point
No RR from the main group, will have to pay attention, aren’t back up FOR the main group nor can they get backup FROM the main group.
It’s not about making things impossible, it’s about making things less easy or obvious. Limit the max number of declared active decs and suddenly big groups stop being big and smaller groups will pop up. Some of those will be alts of the big group but still: they would target different targets and not be as optimised or problematic.
Well I agree with the sentiment, but not so much on the particulars. Plus I think that there’s a sort of anchoring bias when it comes to evaluating risk and reward in video games. If an activity had a certain ratio of risk to reward, and you skew that ratio more heavily towards risk, people have a tendency to view it as unfair, even if the risk to reward ratio was out of whack to begin with.
Of course, this is not to say that risk to reward ratios should never be adjusted. But, I have no doubt that cranking up the risk too much too quickly will just result in a ton of backlash and a bunch people logging off.
So, what’s the solution? Well, I’m not sure. I think it’s a tough problem, and I’m curious to what others have to say on the matter. In the meantime, here are some thoughts on your specific suggestions.
- Doesn’t matter whether or not Eve should have had a delayed local to begin with. The simple fact of the matter is that implementing it now will cause a ton of people to riot or log off. And since CCP reversed course on it once before, I think we’ll just end up with people trying to weaponize outrage in order to get it reversed.
- I thought the wardeck changes were a good idea when CCP first implemented them, but now I’m not so sure. I mean, they might have helped player retention, but has it resulted in the increased retention of hardcore eve players, or the increased retention of number-go-up krabs that want a kindler, gentler Eve.
- No comment.
- I’m actually opposed to mission blitzers and high end abyssal runners get pushed out of Highsec. I suppose that it might help revitalize LS, but it will come at the expense of content for HS hunters. They typically have a lot of bling, and their highly specialized fits are frequently bad at standing up to ganks. Personally, I’d rather see their risk increased another way (i.e. such as getting rid of anomic mission gates so that probers can warp straight to them).
Edit: Oh, I guess that would screw with ship restrictions for anomic missions. Hmm. I dunno. But I still don’t want to see ganker bait pushed out of HS.
4 Likes
Not when being a part of the combination of factors I outlined. In fact, this isn’t even truly necessary if the war fees are calculated in a reasonable manner.
The “sliding scale” system we had was completely the opposite of what I’ve outlined. It was a pay-per-target system that increased the war fee based on the amount of targets, instead of increasing it if your side outnumbers and/or outguns the targets.
The point is to break up giant blanket-dec conglomerates into smaller groups that can actually be reasonably challenged, which is exactly what would happen if it would cost a significant amount for a 400-man group to declare war on a 20-man group.
Wars are already effectively free when you account for the target structure requirement, and the core that drops. Plus, the 100 million ISK fee is insignificant for the overfunded and overmanned large groups that do wars today.
My system would ensure that one-sided wars wouldn’t be able to last forever, without making attackers overpay, while giving the defenders a chance to make lots of money by putting up even a little resistance.
The system we had was nothing like what I’m proposing. It wasn’t nearly comprehensive enough to even be compared.
That’s why the game has developers who actively observe and adjust its systems.
I swear I read this same thread back in 2008. And in 2009, and again in 2011. I’m sure all these have been proposed many many times since then.
“Forcing” game play doesn’t work, all it does is makes player evaluate leaving. Every time CCP has tried to force behavior it has back fired.
Force the carebears into Low Sec? Not happening, they will run level threes, mine Veldspaur or simply quit.
Stop ganking? Not happening, people like blowing things up.
Nerf wardecs? Did that, and all it resulted in is more ganking.
This is supposed to be a sandbox, people will play the way they want or they won’t play it’s really that simple.
To me Eve seems a LOT safer in general now than it was when I last played in 2012, but the same gripes and arguments are happening; neither we nor CCP are learning from the past. It is tonnes easier to make ISK now than previously (seriously, a 3 day old toon that just got done with all four factions’ learning missions has almost 50m isk and 16 ships), but people that aren’t PvP-focued still don’t want their ships blown up. Of course BSs are 4x the price they were back then, so I wouldn’t fly one either not when the BCs have been beefed up to be as strong as BSs were 
Quit trying to force things, let people play the way they want.
1 Like
All of these ideas in the OP predispose the notion that CCP will be the solution to any of the problems currently being experienced.
That being said: I like the ideas and agree it would improve the fundamental carebear experience by adding much more risk to that experience. You pretty much summed up my opinions on what should change, based on my year and some change playing.
At this point, I am cynical. The solution to whatever risk issues you might be experiences would be ameliorated by, well, playing with groups as opposed to solo. Or multibox. That is, after all, a core feature of this game.
I’ve been in gameplay limbo lately. Almost ready to throw my cards in for a new hand with a new team. Would be a whole different game than playing solo and kinda what allured me here in the first place.
The rest of this thread is content for later, I suppose! Popcorn is waiting. Cheers.
1 Like
Sadly I don’t think that’s the case anymore. That’s my whole point. I want to get the playerbase back to that level of playing
You have to know that this statement is false right? Sometimes what players want isn’t good for the overall game, this thread included. Hence, discussion
Back then there were pretty much three rules:
If you found an exploit, report it and don’t use it.
Don’t gank newbies in the newbie systems
If you drew a concord response, the ship must die.
Pretty wide open to play the way you wanted Yet in spite of all the changes to rules, the additional layers of safety, the gentle and not so gentle coaxing to different play styles, nerfs in different areas, can you honestly say the game is better?
Let’s see: High Sec is more empty than it used to be. Low Sec is mostly empty just like it’s always been. 0.0 is about the same, vast areas of nothing behind pillars of troll booths.
Combined with fewer things being made, fewer things blowing up, fewer people dying, less ISK circulating, less ISK being destroyed, and all the rest of the economic report I would say the game isn’t doing better.
That’s the whole point of this thread. I’d like to revert others and change some.
I do agree it is too safe. However, there needs to be some systemic change as my theory is the player base is no longer what you think it is.
It may even be that society as a whole now can’t really play a game like this anymore, which is alarming in and of itself.
What I’ve found is most people truly can’t play a sandbox game long term cause they got no long term self making goal abilities.
1 Like
because you get krabs and other bitter vets instead of staying in the game, even as an alpha, to help really see whats going on and help with changes, people wanna sit on the side lines (forums reddit) and ■■■■■ and moan and whine and cry.
brisc has even stated himself, that CCP gon do, what CCP gon do. whether we like it or not, but bitching from the side lines isn’t helping.
1 Like
You’re probably right, Gix. No intestinal fortitude anymore, nor the patience to do it
Oh well, in the end all we can do is have fun, right?
1 Like
Tis true. Its sad cause there is still a lot of fun to be had.
I hope I’m wrong.
1 Like
I don’t know if this EVE is the EVE but I’m having fun.
3 Likes
And that’s important too.
EVE still can be fun.
2 Likes