Ways To Make EVE, EVE Again

Yes please, I would probably resub.

Would even settle for a wardec opt-in switch for my corp (so others can wardec ME without me needing a structure)

Sure but they aren’t going to bother picking on targets where they NEED that support is the point

Not really, the grief groups will be whatever size they need to be, the major groups just won’t care

Yes and the attacker is entirely in control of those numbers so will just game the system so that the cost increase is minimal at best, you seem to think nobody will change anything and will still just dec 5 man corps with 300 man corps lol

Except they can’t, because they will still focus on things that don’t stand a chance, this does nothing to actually fix what you seem to think it does

Even if that were a billion it wouldn’t actually matter, you massively underestimate how much ISK is available for minimal effort, i mean ■■■■, your war dec group can just go run incursions for a couple of hours a week in order to massively over fund any wars they have active

No you seem to want some automated system which makes little real sense and can still be gamed out the ass in order to keep people stuck in perpetual wars anyway, this doesn’t fix anything

Indeed, but i was specifically referencing the ideas brought up by you, CCp already know there isn’t really anything they can do that we won’t game 200% on day 1


Oh the brains are still here doing their things, there just isn’t anything left to game at present so nothing sticks out as obvious

You wanted an idea, and I gave you one. Now you’re negging this vague napkin outline of an idea by nitpicking individual points (many of them under the assumption of incorrect premises at that), on the grounds that the idea should be discarded because it will be “gamed on day 1.”

Well, yes, it will. But that’s an absolutely asinine perspective to adopt, because logic would dictate that any feature ever implemented would also be susceptible to gaming in the same manner. But obviously that’s not the case, since all of the existing features we have are lacking such loopholes. Why? Because of iterative development. CCP has a proven track record of closing loopholes of all kinds, and they would certainly also close the loopholes in this idea as they present themselves, and if they can’t, then they can always modify or revert the implementation of new features.

You seem to be vested in the absence of specific game mechanics, and I don’t know why (nor do I really care), but your bias becomes evident when you want to avoid trying new things at all costs. Which brings me to your focus on player retention as an apparent primary motivator. Well, if you believe that effectively removing wars from the game accomplished retaining more players through the elimination of “grief cases” as you said, then shouldn’t you be advocating for the removal of all other “grief cases” as well? This means creating an opt-in system for (if not the outright removal of) game mechanics such as ganking, scamming, gate camps, diamond rats, “dealing with the hassle” of there not being enough ore for everyone who wants it, etc…

…So why aren’t you asking for the rest of the “fixes” to be implemented? The only way you’re going to have a lively multiplayer game with lots of players to exploit through player interaction is by removing the methods by which some players can exploit others, so you better get to work. There are far worse boogeymen in the game than wardecs ever were.

Yes i picked holes in your idea, thats how this works, me asking for an idea wasn’t on the assumption that i or anyone else would just blanket accept your idea, and most were discarded because they don’t actually fix the issue you seem to think it does, and if i can circumvent your ideas within 60 seconds you can already see how well prepared groups will be come the day of actual release after its had time to be analysed on SISI

There isn’t any way for them to close those loopholes, thats the point you’re missing, there is zero way for CCP to prevent you from using throwaway corps for wardecs, or using alt corps or alt characters, thats the major flaw, while yes CCP is decent at closing loopholes in systems they have complete control over, this wouldn’t be one of them, like i said they have no way to prevent alts/alt corps, which means that this actually doesn’t solve any of the issues you would want it to fix and would just overcomplicate things and create potentially more points of failure

Keep it simple unless it has to be complicated, in this case complicating the process doesn’t actually improve it

Ahh yes the old “You’re clearly against adding any new features” argument, wondered when this drivel was going to finally show up, i’m against adding bad and pointless ideas to the game, massive difference, one you would understand if you were able to actually look at the larger picture and accept that your suggestion flat out does not work the way you thought it would

Look, i get it, coming up with new ideas is hard and its never great when someone points out obvious flaws at first glance, the issue is you seem to think these are new and original ideas and that you’ve come up with something nobody else has, most of these will have already been considered and some might even have been alpha tested on dev boxes in the last 17 years

These discussions happen on a semi-regular basis

Oh look more terrible comparisons of features, the difference is you have control over most of these, getting ganked is already opt-in, undocking is that opt-in, scamming is opt-in by not reading or understanding game mechanics, the same applies to gate camps, diamond rats aren’t a grief mechanic so i’m unsure where you get that from

The only way to opt-out of the old war system was to sit in NPC corps which causes players to leave because there is no sense of community and they don’t get to experience the game properly, joining a corp is a core experience and joining one makes it far more likely that you’re going to meet and make friends which encourages you to try out group activities and work towards shared goals

Which is why the war mechanic was changed, so that people could experience that part without being decced by someone they have literally zero ways to avoid other than by staying docked or dropping corp

And grief wars were essentially removed, there isn’t anything else that needs to be removed as the rest is part of the EVE learning experience and new players already have some protections against being scammed or attacked in specific systems in the game

Its almost like you don’t know about the rookie griefing policy

Either way, i’ve shown you why your idea won’t work, you’re free to disagree and thats perfectly fine, but i don’t see it being added for the reasons i listed, so you have fun with that however you want :slight_smile:

I don’t expect anyone to “blanket accept” my idea. However, discarding it entirely after basically 3 minutes of typing on my part is pretty silly, as it hasn’t even been fully brainstormed yet.

The use of alt corporations/characters wouldn’t be a factor in this sort of system, because it would be a linear cost-based system. Using 1 corporation of 100 players to declare war would cost as much as using 2 corporations of 50 players. The limitation on the amount of outstanding wars wouldn’t even be necessary. It’s just an additional limitation to act as a minor inconvenience to help push war groups to become smaller.

As far as I know, no one has proposed any similar idea package since Citadels were implemented, since I’ve followed various EVE forums and discussions for many years now. Although I don’t know what the devs have tested internally, if anything.

Not being able to play at all seems like a much harsher penalty than sitting in NPC corporations but still being able to play normally. Sounds to me like ganking is much worse than wars ever were, and should be patched out of the game ASAP.

Most high-sec corporations today are utterly boring ■■■■-fests, either in the form of mega-communities that have no semblance of an actual community (essentially functioning like player-run NPC corporations), or terrible high-sec PvE carebear corporations where the members are shoehorned into boring, unrewarding activities through peer pressure.

This is why I told you to actually go and sit in some generic high-sec corporations so that you can get a feel for how that’s like. I’ve been doing that for nearly 15 years as part of my in-game activities, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the best community bonds that formed in these corporations were in fact formed when the corporations were attacked. Most of the times when what you claim held true was when the CEOs/directors expressed the same sentiments you’re expressing right now, and guilted/depressed the their memberships into non-participation.

Which is all to say that wars, in fact, are great activity drivers. They just need to be balanced in a way that prevents extremely one-sided encounters from taking place. And splitting large groups into smaller ones would in large part accomplish this, by making them easier to contend with, and also by making them compete with each other for territory/protectorates/mercenary work. Which is how things were until about 2012 or so.

The rookie griefing policy applies to characters under a month old, and is limited to a handful of starter and career/SoE systems.

Once again, if you are/were against “grief wars” because they prevented players from playing the game, you’re obligated to also be against mechanics like ganking, because they have the exact same effect. If you want to be consistent, that is.

All I can say is I pay for multiple account and I might sit in the station for a couple hours just spinning my ships lol. Point is I can do what the heck I want until someone else pays for it :).

Ah, yes, those caught out in unanticipated PvP. I consider anytime I undock to be a time when I could be subject to PvP in the form of a thousand screaming catalysts; almost the last form of PvP in high now that war decs are tied to structures.

Yep. Nothing bonds peeps like a common enemy.

Such truth.

But there is people in lowsec, problem is they all congregate in the same areas with the aim of stopping others from entering. You want more players out in lowsec, find a way to reduce the effectiveness of gate camps so more players are willing to jump to low in the first place.

Nice. So you declare war then send an extortion based “end war” - result you have now undertaken to protect your victims for a monthly fee.
A 100 man mercenary group declares war on those who pay you to protect them. How do you protect them without sending war to the larger mercenary group?
What happens when you can’t protect those who pay you? Do you then refund what they’ve paid you?

What happens when your 60 man group is simply overwhelmed by a superior group? Do you then pay for them to protect you?

The only way “war for profit” works is if you have overwhelming force to enforce your goals.
While your outline sounds interesting, it is primarily based on N+1 wins.

1 Like

There already is. Bring more peeps with you to bust the gate camp :smiley:

Shocking right? Having to actually play the game :smiley:

  1. N+1 is a fact of warfare, cope bruv :smiley:
  2. It also depends on skills/fitting and game sense

I hope so

I would assume that the interface would show any potential attackers that their target is a protectorate of someone else. Therefore, you would get pulled in as an ally automatically if your protectorate receives a war—no need to declare a war manually.

Success isn’t guaranteed, and there’s also room for deceit (as with everything else in EVE). When negotiating to become a protectorate, you’ll have to do some research to make sure that your “patron state” is legit. But even a legit group that’s protecting you can still get overwhelmed, though that’s just the cost of doing business. As was the case until CCP killed this aspect of the game, reputation would be very important, and the reputable mercenary groups would be well-known.

It’s a free-form contract system, so you’d be able to negotiate the terms however you saw fit. If you’ve ever played a Total War game, that sort of diplomacy interface is what I’m envisioning. It would be a nice extension of the current contract system. Imagine being able to, for example, put out a contract for a war against someone you want attacked, with the stipulation that a certain amount of damage is caused, over a certain period of time, or a specific structure is destroyed, for a certain reward. Likewise, if someone attacks you, you could put out a contract for protection (e.g. a structure must not be destroyed during the course of the war in order for the reward to be paid out).

It would all be done through an interface. This would be a significant upgrade over what we have today, which is an entirely verbal agreement system, with the only automatic component managed by the game being the inability to declare war again for two weeks after one ends.

is this a blue account post again? or ?
How do you go from berating people and feeding the Opposite of “Chiming in”?

Did you Notice a player Drop?
Maybe your Unique Method of play has been altered?

You’re Re Iterating Stereotypes on EvE, Nothing Relevant to what makes EvE, EVE.

Diversity is the start. Overzealous Posturing is not.
CCP Not Adhering and Respecting the Notion of Customer and Service Tied together.
CCP Not Steering Away From Their Origin, That Being A Harsh Reality.
Consistent Use of Internal and Existing Resources.
what the ■■■■ are you steering into If you cant pilot a thread,.
What kind of pilot could you really Be?

Wait Till Fanfest, Then you’ll see what desperation looks like, from a virtual Point of view.
You can also check the Energy Usage of Server Outlets they Lease and operate.

Review the Log as its public information and the “Numbers” Like water, Don’t lie.
But by all means, let’s all throw our opinions in over facts.

The Advancement of eve is understood as promises to come, if you don’t deliver countless times, as a Consumer You look to find Content for the worth of that cost.

On a game Called EvE, It’s Risk For Reward, with in a SANDBOX PLAYER DRIVEN.

Just the last Statement Alone Should you just play EvE for what it is, When you experience that Feeling, That’s what Any Real EvE player will tell you. Regardless if They:

Mission, Miner, Press F1, Ship Spin Till Ping, Spreadsheet Yesterday better for tommorow Guy, GrandFather Reflexes Guy But also Odin…the List is endless from everyone’s Diversity.

Simply Put and To Summarize.
It’s Still EvE.
It’s what you want to fight for.
Or it’s not.

1 Like

You’re trying way too hard, you’re flailing left and right which makes it seem as if you have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.

If they limit the max active wardecs they WILL break up big entities, the fact that some of those would become alts so they can wardec more doesn’t change that. Those would not receive support from the main group and would be an easier target to attack due to sheer numbers.

Some people will leave that big group because they ran out of targets, some will leave because they now have a good excuse to find their own way again because with other improvements to small/solo wardeccing (like Locator agents getting an overhaul, as I listed) they will go back to what they actually want to do. Some people WANT to be in the biggest group, others were pretty much forced into joining because CCP made it impossible for small independent wardeccers to do well.

Just because there are “loop holes” doesn’t mean it won’t work. It’s not about making something 100% impossible, it’s about nudging the balance and creating incentives and options for us to do things differently. What you’re doing is akin to CCP changing stuff to make AFKing less worthwhile or safe and then you going “yeah but people can still AFK so the changes didn’t do anything”, that’s dumb AF. You’re not dumb AF so that makes me wonder why you’re trying so hard here.

1 Like

Played a game many years ago where this was a thing.
I made an absolute fortune as the leader of 2 clans (one was only my and a buddies alt characters), the alt clan would send war to all and sundry and my other clan, which was ranked number 2 on the server would step in and come to the rescue, for a fee. We would put on a good show for those paying us, killing each other when needed. Got away with it for nearly 2 years as reforming the alt clan when people got wise was just as easy as it is in Eve. It all ended when Devs declared what we were doing an “exploit” of the war mechanics and threatened to ban us (and the few other groups who were doing the same).

As Eve is a game designed to be exploited (within the game mechanics), I’m not sure any mechanics would make highsec wars more than a revenue stream for certain groups.

I’ve played the highsec war game and it really isn’t fun as much of the time those you are at war with simply don’t undock. At one point while in a certain nulsec alliance we decided to come to highsec after Marmites became a bit of a nuisance to logistics - they all but logged off within a day or two of 15 of us confronting them on their own turf.

1 Like

That is part of the reason many wardeccers preferred to be solo or small group, and the same reason why many solo pvpers don’t fly overpowered ships: you don’t want to look too scary. Wardeccing a 200 man mission corp with a 1 man dec corp makes your customers go “lol I’ll be fine” and then you can pick them off one by one.

Beyond that the “create the problem, sell the solution” really works: gank miners, sell mining ships.

This would be difficult to pull off in EVE, because there’s a tangible cost to dying, and also because respected groups are protective of their kill boards. I doubt it would be an wide-scale issue, and besides, the possibility to scam should exist regardless.

They shouldn’t be a revenue stream for anyone but specific groups, i.e. the mercenaries. If generic high-sec miners and missioners are making money (on average, and not just from specific fortunate cases) from this system, then it’s not functioning as intended. The system would be a revenue-sharing model, whose intent is to allow PvE-focused groups to be able to scale up their operations to their maximum potential, because they’re protected by players who will do the PvP fighting on their behalf. The war/mercenary system would be a cost to the PvE players, but would allow them to more than make up for it by being able to leverage their full potential for PvE.

The system we have now works something like this:

  • PvE groups play cautiously due to the PvPers, making only 70% of their maximum potential
  • PvE groups further lose 20% to the PvPers through the latter’s actions, leaving them with 50%

The new system would instead be:

  • PvE groups, protected by mercenaries, make 100% of their potential
  • Protected PvE groups only lose 5% from hostile activity
  • These PvE groups pay their protectors 25% of their income, leaving them with 70%

The numbers are arbitrary, but this is just an example of how the new system could result in a win-win situation for everyone involved, since everyone would have more money at the end. It’s a system that would also likely result in higher destruction volume, as today the PvP groups rarely lose anything, and the PvE groups opt out of hostilities entirely. Many gankers, who used to do wars before they got effectively removed, would also switch back to that activity, leading to overall higher player satisfaction since ganking seems to be the “big boogeyman” that’s directly responsible for lower player retention.

Anyway, I’m sure that CCP will never implement anything like this, so anyone who thinks it’s a bad idea is pretty safe. From here on out, we’re on the path to ever more “events” and instanced PvE content.

The irony :smiley: I’d wager you were Blue based upon the dumpster fire of your post :smiley:

Don’t give away de secret knowledge :smiley:

I do miss that. :slight_smile: