Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

From a game design and player retention standpoint, it is absolutely the right decision.

It's the most half-arsed band-aid CCP has ever come up with, and given that it's CCP, the half-arsed band-aid is all we'll actually get because their bird-brained aversion for actually finishing anything they start will make them go "eh, good enough", while it actually didn't do anything. Check the Reddit thread. There's already a small fuckton of ways and ideas how to exploit this, bypass this, and so on.

Oh, and who relies on structures in highsec? Oh right, yeah... it's the bears. Well shit, the bears remain valid targets, gorsh.

Ah well, PIE gets to be wardec invuln, hah! Same with Napkins and several others. Good work CCP. This solves nothing, causes a ton of new problems and is about as thought out as anything you do. Fucking morons, I swear none of them ever fucking logs into the game. It's the only explanation as to how unfathomable shit they are at actually fucking doing anything with it.

[kalaratiri]

Look at the numbers they showed and tell me something didn't need changing?

It is a band-aid that, if Burger is to be taken seriously, will be in place for 6 months or less.

It's not even in the game yet! They're at Vegas, revealing things like this, for the express purpose of receiving player feedback. There's a month and a half for them to talk to players, read Reddit, and see that it's not a perfect solution and things could be changed to make it fairer.

That's not even really the point though. The big news is that CCP are even acknowledging that there is a problem and committing to doing something about it. Wardecs haven't been touched for 6 years (unironically FW has seen more recent development) are a black pit of griefing and lost subscriptions, and the first reaction you have to "we're changing things, with more changes to come" is "Fuck you those are the wrong things and you probably won't fix anything anyway"?

[Mizhara]

When their 'temporary' fix doesn't actually fix anything, and they have a history of leaving 'temporary' things rather permanently... yeah, I'm going to bitch at them for it. This solves nothing, adds a bunch of problems and is just as likely to be permanent as temporary.

Literally makes things worse..

Now, if they'd actually sat back and thought about it, put some actual effort, thought and work into it, it'd be something else entirely I'm sure. We've lasted a decade and a half with this shit, we can wait another month or two while something that isn't a half-arsed worthless annoyance is come up with. This 'solution' is just pointless and worthless aggravation that doesn't actually fix anything.

We need change, definitely. But it kind of have to be actually functional change, not nonsensical horseshit.

[kalaratiri]

we can wait another month or two while something that isn't a half-arsed worthless annoyance is come up with. This 'solution' is just pointless and worthless aggravation that doesn't actually fix anything.

We literally are waiting a month or two while they come up with something.

It fixes corps of brand new players/real life friends/new growing corps being wardecced for weeks on end by the same 50 people as always. It fixes casual mission running players being pushed to stop playing when they're not interested in PvP. It fixes the most immediate and (to CCP) pressing issue of wardecs, the negative impact on player retention.

It is a stop-gap and nobody is denying that. Including CCP themselves.

They've also shown in recent months that they are much more willing to listen to player suggestion and feedback than they have been historically (HIC changes, interceptor changes, PI QOL changes), as well as publicly committing to a relatively quick development cycle. CCP do not give a time period for a release if they are not pretty fucking sure they'll have something to show by then. Soon(TM) might be a meme but it exists for a reason. I wouldn't be surprised if they've got the bones of a rework in progress already.

[Mizhara]

How does it fix any of these things? Haven't you seen the endless list of ways to get around this, already come up with by the playerbase? How does this fix anything for those reliant on structures, i.e. the bears that cry the most about wardecs? It breaks shit that doesn't need to be broken, while fixing nothing at all.

It's not even a stop-gap when it literally does nothing but harm, while fixing exactly nothing.

[kalaratiri]

If you anchor a structure, you must be prepared to defend it. That's a fundamental of Eve that's existed as long as there have been structures. If you anchor a structure with no willingness or ability to defend it when challenged then you deserve to lose it. This hasn't suddenly changed just because we have upwell stuff now. You said yourself earlier in the thread that the vast number of neutral Freeport engineering complexes and citadels can provide all the services required without having to drop a citadel of your own. If someone is reliant on structures then they either need to be prepared to defend their own, or pay taxes to use someone else's.

The only properly broken problem I've seen is there being no current option to reject someone transferring a structure to you, but somehow I doubt this is a difficult thing to fix. Even that requires the attacker to drop 750m on top of the war fee, which goes a long way towards cutting down on how spammable decs are.

[kalaratiri]

I would also like to see this "endless list". I've seen a few discussions about it, but I think I've only seen about 3 problems in total.

[Samira Kernher]

The problem is that they're coming at this from the complete ass backwards direction. The ability to declare wars on anyone isn't the problem (though there should be a limit on how many wars you can have active at once), it's the lack of means for a decced corp to work towards ending the war and earning a reprieve.

And shit about structures should not have anything to do with any solution. If you make it so a corp has to have a structure to be decced, that just leaves industry corps the primary victims still, still leaves those victims without any means of working towards an end to the war or a reprieve, encourages people to put structures in offshore alt corps, and creates a situation where you're inclined to leave their structures standing so you maintain the ability to prosecute wars against them (IE we leave Nauplius's citadels up so we can actually war him). If you go at the other way people have suggested, of making the attacker have to put up a structure, then all you do is balance decs around who has the most numbers (IE, professional dec corps won't have any issue defending their own structures from the newbies they war). Structures are not a good solution to war decs in any way.

It's also a complete misreading of the statistic. The KPW values only say that corps with structures are more active than corps without structures. It doesn't say whether or not they actually want or try to fight back, how many of them have been destroyed by the fighting (RP examples: Sanxing or KSCS), and so on. Of course there will be less kills per war with decs on non-structure corps, because of how many of those corps are alt or social corps, how many are filled with inactives, etc.

And the big worry here with the bandaid is that: A) The actual system takes far too long to be implemented, or is even dropped, a common thing with CCP, or B) The actual system still includes the structure requirement as part of it. It also reflects the way their thinking is leaning towards: making the fix related to structures somehow.

[kalaratiri]

I agree with you, and in the longer term I would like to see wardecs reworked fully (preferably with a "war goals" system like I mentioned previously).

This change isn't about that though, it's about what CCP can do right now to alleviate the particular issue of negative player retention due to wardecs.

[Mizhara]

And what CCP can do right now appears to be nothing useful. I mean, they could have implemented a whole host of limiting features, introducing limits to amounts of outgoing wardecs, time-limits, changed costs to scale more appropriately with size differences between aggressor/defender, a bunch of little things that would all have a bit of impact each. It'd send the message that they're working on it, and it's a priority.

Instead, we have this. Completely useless.

[kalaratiri]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You could always try unsubscribing about it.

[Louella Dougans]

I've looked at the reddit thing, and all I see that's an exploit/bypass, is transferring structures to the target corporation (apparently you have no control over who is transferring structures to your corporation).

Anchor structure, transfer to target, declare war, shoot structure, ~~~dank structure killmail~~~. 


not exactly an "endless list", but right enough.

especially, as someone transferred a structure to one of CCP's testing corporations, and CCP's fix was to make it so you can't transfer structures to that CCP corporation, rather than implementing anything that would be a control over structure transfers.

 

[kalaratiri]

I've looked at the reddit thing, and all I see that's an exploit/bypass, is transferring structures to the target corporation (apparently you have no control over who is transferring structures to your corporation).

Anchor structure, transfer to target, declare war, shoot structure, ~~~dank structure killmail~~~. 

If someone wants to transfer me a structure that I can transfer off to someone else before the war goes through, or even if they have it at 1%, transfer, then suicide reinforce it, they paid for it. I'd expect that to be patched out anyway, but if it's not and someone wants to drop 3/4 of a billion to deck some mission runners or indy bears who will dock up anyway... More power to them I guess?

[Silas Vitalia]

Bandaids on top of bandaids wont' stop bleeding.

There's a lot easier ways to disuade decs from stronger, older groups on younger, smaller groups instead of this silliness.

You could twiddle all sorts of dials for wardec costs, relative assets, relative skillpoint calculators, etc to effect the cost of the conflict. 

Actually hell the client could do a quick SP check of corporation A membership and apply a cost factor vs SP of corporation B.  So elite pvpers A will have to pay ridiculous fees to dec newbiew corp B.  They can still DO IT but costs should be a factor.

I don't like fundamentally changing what people can and can't do, they should only face persuasive measures for conduct.

It actually goes against the central tenants of the game, where you can DO it but face consequences.  You can totally shoot someone in high sec but you die. You can totally do x but there's a price for it.

[Samira Kernher]

It actually goes against the central tenants of the game, where you can DO it but face consequences.

This.