Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Friday, October 14, 2011

Tears in the big picture

As usual, my blog comments, EVE mail, and in-game text chat turned into a river of flame yesterday regarding my "More Tears" post.  I am no stranger to controversy, and I have a very thick skin.  And I have to admit that from time to time, I'll post things on this blog that are meant to be contrary, and to kick off discussion.  If I lost a dime every time someone said "Jester is far and away one of the dumbest people on the internet, seriously.", I'd lose a lot of dimes.

But you'd have to take them out of the pile that I'd gain from people being kind enough to tell me how much they enjoy the blog, which I'm always thrilled to hear.  :-)

So yeah, sometimes I'll post something to be contrary, but yesterday's post wasn't that.  I meant what I said.  I'll tell you why, but it'll involve a story.  And at the end, I'll even have a couple of suggestions on how to start to fix high-sec war-decs in EVE.

As I mentioned, one of my first experiences with PvP in EVE came in a high-sec war-dec.  I'd been playing the game for five months, and had just started my second account, which was going to be a PvP-focused character.  That character was four months old and had right around two million skill points (and a ton of those were in Learning skills).  This was long before double-speed training, before 24h skill queues, before Battleclinic was particularly helpful, before the projectile buff, before a lot of stuff that current players take for granted.  I hadn't figured out how missions really worked yet, was nowhere near ready to run L3s (or even L2s).  The best ships I could fly on this character were T1 cruisers... badly, so I was mostly sticking to T1 frigs.  I was in a high-sec corp that had seemed like a good idea at the time, but I was realizing that I knew more about EVE than my CEO... and I had been playing for five months.  Most of my income came from mining in a 1.0 system where the corp lived, courtesy of my first character, who was a whole month older.  At that time, trit was selling for 4+ per unit, so you could make a decent low-effort income from veldspar mining.

But the system I was in was infested with can-flippers, so I decided to start fighting back.  I let myself get can-flipped, and used my second character to chase the perpetrator into the next system over.  There, flying a Merlin fit with the help of a friend in Agony Unleashed, I managed to catch him on the gate and solo him to scrap.  If memory serves, he was flying a Punisher.  And that was my first PvP kill in EVE.  ;-)

Which earned my corp a war-dec the next day.  A second war-dec followed about 16 hours later.  My CEO was horrified, as was the corp's one Director.  They immediately instructed everyone in the corp to dock up, log out for the week, and invited all of us to instead play in Singularity that week!  "They'll get bored and the war-dec will end," I was told.  "Don't give them any targets."  And both of them disappeared into SiSi and that was pretty much the last time I talked to them during the war-dec.

Being a mutant and a rebel, I pulled together two other people in the corp that were willing to fight back.  And we did, over the next couple of days.  One fight sticks in my memory today, almost four years later.  Us: a frig, a Harbinger, and me in a Caracal that I definitely couldn't afford to lose.  Them: BCs, battleships, and T2 frigs and cruisers, chasing us around our system.  I designed what I thought was a pretty cunning little trap to catch one of their expensive ships (today, it strikes me as ridiculously primitive).  Still, we got very lucky and it worked.  We managed to isolate one of their T2s from the rest and blow him up before the rest could warp back and rescue him.  I was particularly thrilled because the T2 pilot was more than two years old.  We ran away after it was over.

That single kill guaranteed we won the ISK war from both war-decs.  There was no way they were going to kill our T1s enough times to make it back. 

But the war-decs continued for four more weeks.  Before they were over, I was thrown out of the corp.  I heard that the CEO paid green-mail to finally end the wars.  It makes me smile today, but at the time, I was not happy.  That was my first and last time in a high-sec corp.  I moved my PvP character to null-sec soon after.  I got my ass kicked repeatedly, but persisted and learned from it.

What lingers for me today about this incident was the inherent unfairness of it.  All of us that were fighting were sub-5m SP characters, trying to defend our right to mine veldspar in a 1.0 system.  The aggressors were much older characters with tens of millions of SP and ships and income streams that we couldn't dream of.  They could keep the war-decs going cheaply for weeks, and we had no defense against them.  One of the comments in my post yesterday referenced the desire for high-sec war-dec pilots to pick off low-hanging fruit: easy-to-gank players that can't put up much of a fight.  And that comment, in my experience, hits the nail on the head.  Almost every other high-sec war-dec I encountered later in Sturmgreandier was of this type.  In EVE chat yesterday with someone about my post, he mentioned that high-sec war-dec corps are terrible and not to be feared.  I retorted that sure, I feel that way now, but at the time, they were formidable enough.

Some of you are no doubt bristling at my use of the word "unfair".  EVE is a dark, cold, risky universe where you can get killed at any moment, blah blah blah.  Fine.  I accept that.  Wouldn't still be playing this game if I didn't.

But this morning, I pulled up the names of ten EVE players from old loss-mails from that long-ago high-sec corp, curious as to how they're doing now:
  • six of them have no Incarna-era character pics, and are therefore no longer playing EVE;
  • two of them are still in high-sec corps (one's employment history hints at a brief null-sec past); and,
  • the last two are in a high-sec war-dec corp, apparently inflicting the same pain on other newbies that was inflicted on them years ago.

Guys, I sympathize with high-sec PvPers and mercs.  I really do.  But in this, I have to look at the Big Picture, and the Big Picture says that such high-sec war-decs are often bad for the health of the game.  As another commenter in yesterday's post correctly put it, there are way more people harvesting tears right now than there are "suppliers."  And I have no sympathy at all for people who get blown up in billion ISK mission ships, or Orcas, or Hulks.  These people have shown by the ships they fly that they should have learned how to handle themselves.  If they can't, gank them with my blessings.

I'm all for teaching new EVE players that New Eden is dangerous.  But I also feel like the true newbies -- the ones that are still trying to learn how this game works -- should be protected more than they are today.  That's why I say the current high-sec war-dec mechanics are badly broken.  I have four suggestions for places to start to fix them.

First: I think it would be great if anyone with more than five million SP were barred from 0.9 and 1.0 systems.  But first, we throw all the L3 and L4 agents out of those systems, and make sure that there are good transit paths around 0.9 and 1.0 systems to get from region to region.  Once that's done, if you have more than five million SP and you try to jump into such a system, you get a message stating that the "Yulai Convention Decree Against Immortals" prevents it.  Once you have five million SP when you log in, if you're docked in such a system, the same mechanic that bumps you out of Jita when it's too crowded offers to bump you and your belongings to the closest 0.8 system.

Want to hunt true newbies?  Still want to suicide gank them?  Fine.  Start a new or trial account to do it.  Level the playing field.  You 20 and 25 million (or more) SP characters hunting true newbies?  Get out.  You're embarrassing yourselves and you're hurting the game.

"Jester, what about the markets?" I can hear some of you ask.  "Move them," sez I.  I've been playing long enough that I can vaguely recall a time pre-Jita.

Second: I think a war-dec should inflict significant ISK penalties on actions that are currently free.  If your corp is war-dec'ed and you want to join an alliance, you must pay a sizable ISK bribe to CONCORD to do it.  If your corp is active in a war-dec, new players or the corp itself have to pay individual (smaller) bribes to allow it.  If you're in a war-dec'ed corp and try to leave: again, a sizable bribe.

Third: if you fleet with someone who's at war, or provide any material assistance whatsoever -- repping, friendly e-war, gang-link boosting, whatever -- to anyone who is in a fleet with anyone who's at war, you're at war.  This won't stop all the neutral alt exploits, but it'll stop a lot of them by making them valid WTs from the get-go.  But it'll make incursion-gankers happy: they can go after anyone in an incursion fleet they like rather than just the WTs in the fleet.  As a side effect, that will force incursion-runners to HTFU.

Fourth: each week, the cost of maintaining a war-dec against the same target doubles from the previous week, as do the costs of all bribes affecting that war-dec from my second point.  This will blot out or reduce a good bit of dec-shielding, but will also reduce or eliminate endless or near-endless war-decs.  At the very least, you'll have to give your war-dec target cooling-off periods from time to time.

Wow, this is a long post.  I didn't intend to rant quite this hard.  ;-)  Anyway, what do you think?  Are these good suggestions, or are they fail for some reason I'm not seeing?

30 comments:

  1. Good suggestions, too bad they are not going happen. CCP cannot afford to piss off High Sec gankers, who are alts for Null Sec dwellers anyway. Not Now, not Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your post in principle, but simply banning individuals with a certain amount of SP from certain systems - in my opinion - is dropping a big turd into the sandbox. I think we can provide disincentives for higher SP players stomping on newbies without resorting to such a heavy-handed mechanic. I haven't given enough thought about it to say exactly WHAT that mechanic is but I think it's possible.

    I also think that the current games played with high-sec war declarations (alt corps driving up the price, alliance-hopping, etc) should be taken out of the mega-game and put into more formalized game mechanics. Maybe corporations should have to bid for war contracts, or the receiving corporation can bribe CONCORD to get that declaration lost in the mail.

    I think it would also help if objective goals could be added to wars - conditions for victory or loss that would end the declaration automatically. Not only does it provide structure to the wars but provides a quantitative in-game measure of a corporation's victories. Maybe "X financial loss", "X pods of players with >Y skillpoints", or "X POSes destroyed". Again, details would have to be worked out by individuals more competent than myself but I believe it's doable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TBQFH the solution to poor little babby just wants to mine in peace is already in the game, Jester.

    They're called NPC corps. You're immune from wardecs in them. Want to mine with friends? Well strike me stupid, you can make a chat channel. Want to avoid a wardec? Drop your toon into an NPC corp and carry on. You pay tax for immunity.

    Eve need to be frank with itself. A corp is not a guild. It's not just there for friends to fly together. It's a declaration you are ready to step out into the "harsh" real universe of eve.

    If CCP did more to say "hey, you know what? Is making a corp on your third day in eve really a good idea?" then you can cut out all the bullcrap above, even drop ANY cost to wardec, and have an actual sandbox.

    Obviously this needs work. You would need to have it such that for say, your first 90 days, you pay no tax in an NPC corp. Then maybe 5% from 90-180 days then steadily more upto 25% for characters over a year old.

    Immunity should come at a price, it shouldn't be handed out to all and sundry to protect new players, who already have protections to abide themselves of.

    Remember your old CEO, who told people to log off for a month? Think he was smart enough to know the wardec mechanics in and out and fully exploit them to make his corp safer? No, I would hazard not. The new rule change does jack shit to protect new players, and does a whole fuck load to protect people who just want to carebear and avoid the possibility of PVP in their game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your blog and thoughtful writing.
    Excellent post, as usual.

    My question about your proposal is how it would affect Red v Blue, which seems to be Working™.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Incidentally, can you tell us what happened to the pilots that you fought back against? Did they quit or are they still around?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Duncan: none of the additional bribes would be needed if a war-dec is mutual.

    @Khan: remember, this isn't a "new rule." CCP is just indicating that they will be forever turning a blind eye toward what corps that knew the mechanic *were already doing*. Nothing is changing. And people in NPC corps aren't immune... far from it. The Macks being smited by the score in Gallente space right now prove that.

    @Tarm: I get what you're saying about dropping a turd in the sandbox (amusing analogy, heh), but events have proven that the sandbox does need a place for the 4-year-olds to play without getting sand kicked in their faces by the teenagers. In the U.S., four- and five-year-olds attend different schools from older children for a reason.

    Objective-driven war-decs aren't going to work, unfortunately. It would be too easy to set too-low objectives.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @DSJ: one of the corps that dec'ed us is still quite active, is now in a large null-sec alliance, and are quite a bit bigger now then they were back then.

    The other was Maximum Yarrage, which was a very active high-sec pirate corp at the time but has since collapsed.

    I didn't look into individuals among their pilots because we didn't kill very many of them. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Jester While I agree with the principle, my disagreement is with the binary nature of such a mechanic. I think we should limit "You're either X or Y" mechanics, especially when we have an existing measure of noobiness in the form of SP.

    As an example:
    CONCORD should impose a fee for hostile action against new players in those areas. Say, if you're in a 0.9 or 1.0 system, aggressing a player with less than 1/2 of your SP results in your corporation receiving an fine from CONCORD, the amount of which scales with the proportional difference in SP.

    I'm sure there are plenty of potential ways this can be exploited but I don't think that the concept itself is so unsound that we need to resort to outright banning players from entering specific systems.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I could live with that as an alternative, though it'd be a lot more difficult to implement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @kahn- U Mad bro? It sure sounds like it, and furthermore, it really sounds like you are one of the "low hanging fruit" scavengers we are talking about here.

    I think your idea of having less people in player run corps and more people staying in NPC corps to avoid getting war dec'd is ridiculous...you're not supposed to stay in an NPC corp for protection, you're supposed to join a serious corp for protection. If people stay in NPC corps there will be even less PVP to be found in high sec, and even less incentive for "carebears" to ever bother with PVP, or even friends to talk to in game.... your idea will only lead to more bots or people who mine afk while watching TV.

    As Jester just commented- nothing actually changed today...CCP had rules in place that weren't being enforced, and High Sec corps have been exploiting the holes in the system for a long time- at least some of the high sec corps hiding behind "dec-shields" are actually teaching new players how to play smart and enjoy the game more, instead of just making them feel like helpless victims for "e-thugs" to pray upon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Jester- I don't think they need to change much with the way things work in high sec- I think the real problem is the lack of incentive for the PVP addicts to go into the more dangerous areas where PVP should be more common.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Tarminic/Jester

    Also nigh impossible for the agressor to know ahead of time. Date of creation can only give a rough guide, and can be quite misleading. My own main was created about 2 years before I actually started playing, as I tried the trial and didn't sub for quite some time afterward. Another character created in the same period engaging my own would expect a "fair" fight with little to no penalty and might wind up with a huge fine.

    Such a system would also be easily circumvented by "10 hour heros" preying on new characters instead of using their mains.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From a "realism" standpoint, wardecs are illogical anyways. Civilians don't "declare war", excepting via the government/military (hence FW), and while it's reasonable to think that an individual/corp may bribe the police/CONCORD to look the other way for a single isolated incident (and of course such bribery would be very, VERY costly) .... no amount of money, NONE, buys you the power to run amok in the streets killing people, in a civilized culture.
    Want to be a Somali warlord? There's "uncivilized" places called low and null for that.
    Now, should there be risk in hisec? Yes. The problem that CCP created comes from the modern stupid hairless ape adage that "more complexity is better". More rules, more laws, more policies, whatever. Applies in-game, and the meta (or mega, as someone else stated?) game called life.
    Rather than making things more convoluted and complex, we should seek to simplify. Hell, if CCP had bothered to inject an iota of common sense with regard to the canon/story of the universe they're creating (aggghhh ohnoez, "roleplay"), they would've had the same thought as above. Perhaps in Caldari culture (where megacorps run the gov't) such a wardec system would be perfectly valid and legal. The other races? Not so much.
    Then again, CONCORD as a magical mystical appears-from-thin-air with not-entirely-surprising buttsecks entity wouldn't exist either.
    Easy solution, that yes, will cause tears, but be far simpler and more elegant than "iterating" a broken mechanic with more broken mechanics which will just lead to different (and perhaps more) exploits .... ditch wardecs, nerf CONCORD.
    Personally, I'd just as soon nerf CONCORD to the point of no permajams -- they have the same "chance to jam" as if equipped with a T2 ECM (sans bonuses), and no auto-instant scram either. A sufficiently fast/thought-out attack should be able to escape CONCORD, and a sufficiently well put together fleet (RR BSes esp/ with logis?) should be able to tank CONCORD for at least a while. Maybe even fight back and make a CONCORD wreck or two. ;-)

    As a side note, "iterate" FW to include pirate factions (at war with legit gov'ts and CONCORD) and CONCORD. Especially with nerfed CONCORD, that could be hellaciously fun. Have CONCORD militia responding to bear gankings, etc, get LP for wasting people who go GCC, or have outlaw status in lolsex. Now THAT would be some interesting mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Fourth: each week, the cost of maintaining a war-dec against the same target doubles from the previous week, as do the costs of all bribes affecting that war-dec from my second point"

    Here's an idea to get around corps trying to "game" it by dropping the war dec for a day and starting it again.
    For each week that you had the war dec, it doubles, but for each week that you are not war decced with them, the fee halves again.
    That way if you are war decced for 4 weeks, it doubles for 4 weeks, so the other corp is forced to drop the war dec for 2 weeks for the "heat" and the price to go down enough, that the enemy corp can afford to war dec again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I still think it is not possible to desing an exploit-free war-dec system.

    In the perfect sandbox there is nothing preventing the 40yo grown-up bullies (teenagers, you say?! hah) from taking a sledge hammer and breaking every bone of the babies that spawn naked in the sand without a clue.

    Sure, you recommend some sort of newbe protection. I also agree it is necessary for the game health, even if it means breaking with the sandbox concept a bit. But the major problem with it is that there is not way to tell with 100% precision if a player is a newbe or not just by looking at the properties/stats of his toon(s).

    A lot of PvP games implement some kind o newbe protection and in fact you will notice that in most of those games it is agains the rules to have more that one identity per player or, in more general terms, for one person to have some kind of benefit from having more than one account.

    And with that we reach a concept that complicates matters a lot: alts. We don't just have normal people playing in the sandbox. We have people with multiple faces. They can switch them at will and in many cases use more than one at once.

    Imagine Eve without the war-dec system. It sure is a complex universe. And then you are trying to add a set of rules to regulate hostilities among group of players in a location that was meant to be safe, ganks apart.

    The more rules you implement, the further away you move from the KISS concept (or as someone said, the more turd you put in the box). Each of these rules are meant to enable or prevent certain blue-red or blue-blue actions, and the more rules you implement the more likely it is that some use cases will go unnoticed and some of those rules will be misused in blue-neut or in the inverse situation than originally designed.

    As stated in a comment here, the more complex you make the system the more you are helping the people that don't need protection (high-sec pvp corps that are used to it) and the more unclear and helpless it becomes for the ones that really need, the players who just arrived in this game universe.

    Thus, I stand resolute. It is simply not possible to design a sensible, fair and exploit-free war-dec system.

    But to give you some hope and something to think about I give you a chanllenge: forget the current war-dec system and desing a new one with as little "hard" rules as possible. In fact, aim for at most three.

    It won't be perfect. Far from it. But in the end it may end up offering more actual protection and be more intuitive to the newbes. After all, it is a lot easier to teach people less rules and let them understand their consequences then show a complex system with all its intrincacies and implications.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you want to kill 0.9 and 1.0 systems? How are new players going to find people to play with who aren't new? They'll head to systems where the players are, and thus there will be no high-SP capsuleers in 0.9 or 1.0, and there will be no low-SP capsuleers there either (apart from the mining bots who can now mine gank-free).

    Re-introducing the Lofty scam is not really a step forwards.

    Did you spend any time thinking these ideas through?

    The best idea for hisec wardecs is to only allow wardecs to have a stated purpose: e.g.: keep the target corp out of space for a week, destroy 1 POS, inflict 20 losses, and so forth. In addition have the wardec fee scales based on (a function of) the difference in mean SP. If your corp is 25M SP/pilot mean and the target corp is 5M SP/pilot mean, the wardec fee goes up by a factor of 25 (25/5 squared).

    Providing aid such as tracking links or remote reps to a war target should either give you the aggression flag (as if you had shot someone) meaning you can't dock for 60 seconds, or the criminal flag meaning you get CONCORDed.

    As for your comment about Incursion fleets: it is already quite possible to grief those fleets without reintroducing the Lofty scam. Arrange for your logistics pilot to "steal" from your alt's container, all the logistics inherit the blinky flag to your alt who can then blow up the logistics and thus the fleet. Alternately, tell the fleet that the wardec is "a one person corporation who never logs on", and fly in the fleet of 20 members from that corp to blow up the logistics pilots.

    The suggestions you came up with will make life much worse for the people new to the game. You really do need to take Malcanis' observation into account.

    I can only imagine you're trolling to see if folks come up with "better" ideas so you can follow up with another post with the wardec idea you actually want to talk about ("here's one I prepared earlier").

    ReplyDelete
  17. Locking down "starter areas" in EVE ? Not even Lord of the Rings does that sort of thing. Bad idea.

    In other comments it becomes clear that flexible fees ( aka CONCORD bribe ) can be an effective tool to control the duration of wars. Whether you use the SP difference of aggressor and target or time-based volatility; that is details. But I'm not yet so convinced by that approach as a sole tool because it is a "penalty". And by being a penalty it kind of sanctions the philosophy that war-decs meant to be a pay-to-grief mechanic. What I haven't seen in the comments much is "objectives" for a war-dec. Something that you need to positively achieve.

    I mean, inflict pain and damage sure is some sort of objective, but hard to capture by the game engine. I was wondering : can the aggressor not commit to some sort of measurable goal in the issueing of the war dec that - when reached or failed - bring an end to the war as well ? Same goes for the defender, by the way.

    Ideas anyone ?

    With a proper war-dec achievement system this could turn out into more of a proper "game" among equals and less a mere noob slaughter fest.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just a random thought: how about a counter-bribe by the victim of a war-dec to CONCORD, to end a war before its alloted time? That would also fit into the image of industrialists solving problems by throwing money at it :)

    Of course, somebody will pipe up that my idea would introduce a PVP-Flag blah blah - the which my response would be: EVE is supposed to be harsh universe, and it's time that this harshness is felt by both sides of a war dec.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't like the change preventing older people from going into 1.0 and 0.9 sec systems.

    I believe however that there should be more consequences for wardecs, this requires things to fight over in high-sec. It would be interesting if you could wardec to prevent access to systems, if the wardec is uncontested certain members cannot enter system XY. Enforced by certain NPCs (not concord, maybe faction police).

    Carebears even should have a reason to go to war in high-sec.

    Frankly I think that corps that 'dec carebears with high-standings to NPC corps should have their own standings knocked. This would also likely need a whole new look at the standing mechanic though. To make them more meaningful.

    (NPC corp and not faction or security).

    Regardless the whole wardec mechanic is fail and needs to be reworked.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Druur

    That is something I also have contemplated. I think a counter-bribe would work IF it wasn't a set price and neither party knew how much the other side was paying:

    1)War declared. Declaring party places a single "bid" with Concord for however much ISK they want.

    2)Within the 24 hour "warm up" priod before the war begins, the targetted party may also submit a bid of any amount they choose.

    3) If a bid is submitted by the decced corp/alliance and it is larger than that submitted by the agressor, the war is canceled. he agressor cannot war dec the same target for the next 7 days. Otherwise the war proceeds as normal.

    4)Regardless of the outcome, all bids are collected by Concord. ISK sink, we need more.

    5)At the end of each 7 day "cycle" of the war (or failed war if the aggressor was outbid) the agressor may choose to renew the dec by placing another bid, and the target may respond in kind by placing a bid of their own with the same results as listed above.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Barring people from 1.0 and 0.9 systems seems heavy-handed. What about just making war-decs null and void in 1.0 and 0.9 (unless the war-dec is mutual)? Shoot a WT there and CONCORD responds. That would give hi-sec corps a place to retreat to and still be somewhat active during a war-dec. It would also allow the decced corp to go out and engage if they wanted to - like Jester did in his story.

    It would make the low-hanging fruit harder to reach and less worth the effort for the predators. It would be harder to camp their targets into a pocket of 0.9 and 1.0 systems.

    I think this is better than barring people from systems based on SP.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Love your blog, but disagree with everything in this post.

    > But I also feel like the true newbies -- the ones that are still trying to learn how this game works

    Those newbies *should be in NPC corporations*. If you're willing to get into a player-run corporation, you take the risk of non-consensual PvP. That's what makes EVE great.

    ReplyDelete
  23. > And people in NPC corps aren't immune... far from it. The Macks being smited by the score in Gallente space right now prove that.

    Suicide ganking is far different from wardecs, and I'm disappointed you are grouping them together. CONCORD intervention and security penalty hits make suicide ganking a far different beast.

    Among many other reasons, I like EVE *because* many new players *don't* like the non-consensual PvP and the fact that CONCORD doesn't protect you, just punishes others. Attracting players who can't deal with the harshness of EVE's universe is not in the best interest of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have to agree with Jester, IMHO this game, above most others games, confers a massive advantage to more senior pilots both in terms of abilities and income streams, other games seem to segregate high and low classes better. A battlecruiser might be the culmination of a month of work for a newb, whereas an older player goes through BCs like sharks teeth. If newbs really understood what it really meant to be fighting a pilot with >40 million SP, they would probably quit.

    As for the mechanics, I would iterate it a bit, maybe activate gate guns on high SP players attacking low SP. Or how about adding a bunch of 1.1 systems for their exclusive use. Your system would probably work too Jester.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would imagine a much quicker fix is to enforce a cooldown between wardecs, increasing based on the number of wardecs aimed at that corp over a 6 month rolling window. Combine that with an exponential fee for maintaining a war and you'll have a system that promotes fast, surgical strikes for small corps, and a means of maintaining long sieges for alliances.

    ReplyDelete
  26. All the people saying that true newbies should be in NPC corps have been playing for so long, they've forgotten the big reason newbie players start corps. They've got a few real-world friends they want to play with and they want common hangar space, which you can't get in an NPC corp, even if you somehow managed to start characters that were all in the same NPC corp.

    Are there workarounds for sharing stuff without a common hangar? Yeah, but they are all monumental pains in the ass.

    I don't think it's reasonable to say "if you want to share your rat loot in a common fitting hangar, you have to be ready to survive bullying by 40m skillpoint characters.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think reforms in the high-sec war dec system are all that vital. But I'm sympathetic to Jester's main point, which is that the new player experience would be quite a bit more rewarding if young characters had a bit more protection from tear-harvesters. (And I say this as a tears-harvester from way back.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. as a 9 month carebear who just went through his first wardec my comment is "Leave me the f**k alone and let me mine and mission in peace." Oh and the wardec...seems that carebears do have sharp teeth and claws for every 1 kill they ( the ex-losec ganker corp that deced us)got we got 4 of theirs.

    IMHO wardecs in hisec serve no purpose other than to allow legal ganking

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree, the High sec war dec system has drowned countless new eve players in their infancy and cost CCP untold sums in subscription fees. Eve is hard enough to learn as it is without a gang of neigh invincible players decimating what little income and ship you have at such a early stage. Scores of other wise happy paying players have simply unsubed and left. This hurts eve, this hurts CCP's profits and ability to invest in eve, This hurts vets ability to find new talent.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I just don't see any purpose in hisec war decs. Ganking is always a danger and I accept that. My contention is, was, and will always be, if you're looking for PvP, you should be in losec/nosec. Period. The end. Just get rid of wardecs. If people want to fight in hisec, gank is the way. Even in the system you describe, in which individuals would have to pay to escape a dec (foolishness IMO), people would just not join a player corp. If the end result is that there are few, if any, hisec carebear corps, and the same people are still working together, just not under the same player banner, then there doesn't seem to be a point to hisec wardecs. It's only result is to encourage people to stay out of corps. I think its important to ask a fundamental question: what is the POINT of a wardec? Now answer the question while imagining there are no corps left in hisec.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The connection you're drawing between HiSec wardecs/griefing and people still playing the game (after 4 years) is a tenuous one, I must say.

    ReplyDelete