These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Overhaul of CCP's War Dec Overhaul...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-03-31 19:36:01 UTC
I'm going to shorten up some of the quotes so I have more space to reply
RavenTesio wrote:

• War Declarations should have a Cease-Fire Agreemen

This doesn't make too much sense. A cease fire agreement shouldn't effect anyone but the involved parties, so allowing a global kill rights when the treaty is broken shouldn't effect anyone else

Quote:

• War Declarations should have Neutral Zone
• War maintainance cost should be respective of the Space permitted to fight within

I feel that stations are already a neutral zone. No one can attack you when you're docked. Apart from that, neutral zones should really be based off who you know. If you're friends with a major alliance or what not, then you can go into their territory and be protected, or you could pay someone to make sure your opponent doesn't get to you in a certain system

Quote:
• Mutual Wars

What you expressed here really didn't make much sense to me. No one is going to make a war mutual if it's going to cost them money, and they for sure won't make it mutual if it's making it cheaper for the opponent.

However, when you decide to make the war mutual at the target, then the system should warn you when the war about to end and give the target corp the opportunity to pick up the war dec and continue it, but as the aggressor. While you will have to pay for the week, the cost could possibly be reduced for you, and the war continues with no buffer period. The original aggressing corp wont' know that you've exstended the war until their period of war declaration has ended. Also, if the original aggressor decides to pick up the tab after you've already paid to exstend, then your isk is returned.

Quote:
• Improve the War Declaration / Preparation Interface, but DO NOT take away Corporate / Alliance Voting for it.


100% agree. It shouldn't be left up to just one person. I'm not going to continuously keep fighting my CEO's personal vendetas.

It should also be easier to start a vote, and easier to actually vote. As the sit right now, they're kinda complicated to set up, and even though I've voted quite a few times, I still seem to forget how and where to vote.
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#22 - 2012-03-31 20:31:17 UTC
Although it could be rather than a global flag, perhaps instead a distress call could be made that allows you to temporarily enlist (15min timer) the aid of a neutral to help

Joe Risalo wrote:

I feel that stations are already a neutral zone. No one can attack you when you're docked. Apart from that, neutral zones should really be based off who you know. If you're friends with a major alliance or what not, then you can go into their territory and be protected, or you could pay someone to make sure your opponent doesn't get to you in a certain syste


The number of station games that are played, particularly during Wars frankly pisses me off
You being a member of the Caldari Militia, should be far more than aware of this ridiculous mechanic... most of the time when a war is started what the aggressor will do is perma-camp another corps HQ / Area of Ops station, meaning they're just flat out unable to play unless they fight on the aggressors terms

While in Low / Null-Sec, sure there are areas where you can effectively hide ... but this isn't as big of a luxury in High-Sec
I would also argue that not every low-sec corporation has ties to big alliances or back-up willing to help when they get perma-camped in station

This doesn't prevent station camping, simply it limits it so there is always going to be a sort of small "safe zone" allowing pilots to get in / out without being insta-popped or needing insta-undocks (which are no longer quite as effective, or well known outside of null / low-sec

Joe Risalo wrote:

What you expressed here really didn't make much sense to me. No one is going to make a war mutual if it's going to cost them money, and they for sure won't make it mutual if it's making it cheaper for the opponent

However, when you decide to make the war mutual at the target, then the system should warn you when the war about to end and give the target corp the opportunity to pick up the war dec and continue it, but as the aggressor. While you will have to pay for the week, the cost could possibly be reduced for you, and the war continues with no buffer period. The original aggressing corp wont' know that you've exstended the war until their period of war declaration has ended. Also, if the original aggressor decides to pick up the tab after you've already paid to exstend, then your isk is returned


There are plenty of corporations who believe in Mutual Wars (RvB for example), often this is a strong part of roleplaying within the game. Idea with this is to basically make the wars relatively cheap to maintain, especially as if it is mutual that both parties want to be involved in the war then why should only 1 side pay for the upkeep? Seems quite ********, basically both sides would be paying simply for the rights to fight within High-Sec mostly... this is something many Null / Low-Sec Corporations or Alliances won't care about, so the cost will be almost non-existant

I would also make the point that once a War is Mutual, both sides are locked in to it without Surrender Aggreements
As such should you begin to win a conflict, you might want to make it mutual to force the aggressor corporation from backing out, along with certain Diplomacy aspects (Cease-Fire, Mutual Neutral Zones, Surrender Contract Terms, etc.) would be tied to having a mutual war

---

I would also go on to make a point about Allies and expand on the Neutral Zone, these are aspect where you could for example pay an Alliance (or if there is a prior agreement, which I think system Rental System from Alliances should have this too) to be Allies or Neutral Zone; this means that the given Sovereignty Holder is responsible for upholding the area as Neutral Territory

This doesn't mean (let's say Test as an example) get you to pay for Neutral Zone rights, then pod everyone who comes in; that's just a Risk you'll have to take... but in Empire Space (Low = Navy, High = Concord) these areas are enforced by the NPCs that control them

Idea is while sure you can simply pay your way to being "Safe" within a War, the reality is it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. It would also be a good point that it also becomes a case of "whoever has better standings" to who that particular Empire will side with, but would need to be considerably larger - otherwise it is a "first-come, first-serve" situation and the other side is declined from making a deal
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-03-31 22:30:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Athos warrior wrote:
I disagree totally with charging defenders any amount for not engaging WT's when a war is not mutual. This would only cause more griefing. I am against any and all sort of griefing especially war dec griefers.

The costs should be high for an agressor corp. Also if they don't get any kills for the week they should be kept from continuing the dec and have a week stasis period before they can war dec.


Lol pay more for the dec and then when you wont undock be forced into ceasefire.

There are alot of crackhead carebears in EVE. Keep wishing. You are going to endure forced pvp so start training up some core skills or prepare for station vacation.

War is free to declare in real life. Its only expensive to lose war in most cases minus ammunition overhead.

The bottom line is EVE is a grief-tastic cesspit of freedom, the protections the bears want are never coming and the game is about to become more hardcore. Good times.
Xemnus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-03-31 22:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Xemnus
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Athos warrior wrote:
I disagree totally with charging defenders any amount for not engaging WT's when a war is not mutual. This would only cause more griefing. I am against any and all sort of griefing especially war dec griefers.

The costs should be high for an agressor corp. Also if they don't get any kills for the week they should be kept from continuing the dec and have a week stasis period before they can war dec.


Lol pay more for the dec and then when you wont undock be forced into ceasefire.

There are alot of crackhead carebears in EVE. Keep wishing. You are going to endure forced pvp so start training up some core skills or prepare for station vacation.

War is free to declare in real life. Its only expensive to lose war in most cases minus ammunition overhead.

The bottom line is EVE is a grief-tastic cesspit of freedom, the protections the bears want are never coming and the game is about to become more hardcore. Good times.



Wow.. you think War is free to declare in real life..? Sure you can say that, but have you ever declared war on a country? Sending many REAL people to their death and having to tell their parents that their son died because I wanted to grief this country? I bet that makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. If you want war, go to null sec. I've been when I was ready to PvP. It was fun, now I want to relax. If you want to go to war with someone that badly, pay up. Stop griefing and give me a real fight instead of running and hiding... then gatecamping.

If they are going to force us to PVP, they may see a big decrease in server population soon after.
Athos warrior
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-04-01 01:03:00 UTC
[quote=Xemnus][quote=Caliph Muhammed][quote=Athos warrior]I disagree totally with charging defenders any amount for not engaging WT's when a war is not mutual. This would only cause more griefing. I am against any and all sort of griefing especially war dec griefers

The costs should be high for an agressor corp. Also if they don't get any kills for the week they should be kept from continuing the dec and have a week stasis period before they can war dec.[/quote

Lol pay more for the dec and then when you wont undock be forced into ceasefire.

There are alot of crackhead carebears in EVE. Keep wishing. You are going to endure forced pvp so start training up some core skills or prepare for station vacation.

War is free to declare in real life. Its only expensive to lose war in most cases minus ammunition overhead

The bottom line is EVE is a grief-tastic cesspit of freedom, the protections the bears want are never coming and the game is about to become more hardcore. Good times.[/quote


Wow.. you think War is free to declare in real life..? Sure you can say that, but have you ever declared war on a country? Sending many REAL people to their death and having to tell their parents that their son died because I wanted to grief this country? I bet that makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. If you want war, go to null sec. I've been when I was ready to PvP. It was fun, now I want to relax. If you want to go to war with someone that badly, pay up. Stop griefing and give me a real fight instead of running and hiding... then gatecamping

If they are going to force us to PVP, they may see a big decrease in server population soon after.[/quote

No its not a carebear attitude. See my comments in the other thread I started about this. 99% of the empire war deccers are pure griefers. Yet if they get an even fight they run and hide and logoff. They only want easy cheap kills and they have all the advantage in the current system. Defenders that did nothing to bring the grief on them have few ways to combat most war dec griefers. They are just chumps who cant hack it in nul and low sec or often alts of null/low sec just griefing others to take their fun away
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-04-01 10:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Athos warrior wrote:
[quote=Xemnus][quote=Caliph Muhammed][quote=Athos warrior]I disagree totally with charging defenders any amount for not engaging WT's when a war is not mutual. This would only cause more griefing. I am against any and all sort of griefing especially war dec griefers

The costs should be high for an agressor corp. Also if they don't get any kills for the week they should be kept from continuing the dec and have a week stasis period before they can war dec.[/quote

Lol pay more for the dec and then when you wont undock be forced into ceasefire.

There are alot of crackhead carebears in EVE. Keep wishing. You are going to endure forced pvp so start training up some core skills or prepare for station vacation.

War is free to declare in real life. Its only expensive to lose war in most cases minus ammunition overhead

The bottom line is EVE is a grief-tastic cesspit of freedom, the protections the bears want are never coming and the game is about to become more hardcore. Good times.[/quote


Wow.. you think War is free to declare in real life..? Sure you can say that, but have you ever declared war on a country? Sending many REAL people to their death and having to tell their parents that their son died because I wanted to grief this country? I bet that makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. If you want war, go to null sec. I've been when I was ready to PvP. It was fun, now I want to relax. If you want to go to war with someone that badly, pay up. Stop griefing and give me a real fight instead of running and hiding... then gatecamping

If they are going to force us to PVP, they may see a big decrease in server population soon after.[/quote

No its not a carebear attitude. See my comments in the other thread I started about this. 99% of the empire war deccers are pure griefers. Yet if they get an even fight they run and hide and logoff. They only want easy cheap kills and they have all the advantage in the current system. Defenders that did nothing to bring the grief on them have few ways to combat most war dec griefers. They are just chumps who cant hack it in nul and low sec or often alts of null/low sec just griefing others to take their fun away


Certainly no worse than the chumps who cant hack it in Null, Low or High (the whiney no pvp ever hiseccer). Second, its a fallacy. Many small griefer corps can hack it in null. But you can't maintain playing in null without toons who can do logistics (transporting & such) and many entrances are camped to the point a dozen pvpers couldnt get through the bubbles. Let alone take on multi hundred man alliances.

I know the logical response is to recruit logistics capable pilots, in the same light perhaps the high sec corps should recruit PVP players to defend them. For whatever reason the players in Hisec have not the means or desire to play in null and as such play in hisec.

And again, war is free to declare. Gangs in Los Angeles do it all the time and never pay a cent. Fueling the war however, ammunition, equipment and manpower replacement, that takes money.

"Fair fights" is a term for arenas. Not war. There are no fairplay rules in war and if you do have a fair fight, you did it wrong.
Andrew Gunn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-04-01 12:22:43 UTC
Where's the "unlike" button? I'd like to know if people think I'm full of sh*t, so I think you'd like to know too.

If I remember correctly the wardec fee for Corp on Corp was 2 million isk - that's 6 zeroes baby - I don't recollect the old fee on alliances. Anyway, that 200 million base wardec fee you proposed for Corp on Corp is a ludicrous price for a small corp.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#28 - 2012-04-01 15:15:18 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

Certainly no worse than the chumps who cant hack it in Null, Low or High (the whiney no pvp ever hiseccer). Second, its a fallacy. Many small griefer corps can hack it in null. But you can't maintain playing in null without toons who can do logistics (transporting & such) and many entrances are camped to the point a dozen pvpers couldnt get through the bubbles. Let alone take on multi hundred man alliances.

"Sure we can hack it in null" followed by a list of excuses that show they clearly can't.

If you don't treat your logistics team with the respect they deserve for giving you the opportunity for PvP in the environment that is best suited for it, you don't deserve to play there.

Trying to bring that environment into highsec will drive people away from the game as a whole and is one of the stupidest ideas I've seen in a while.

Because there are a lot of people playing EvE who have no intention of ever being PvP players, and if you try to force them into PvP they have other games they can play.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-04-01 15:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

Certainly no worse than the chumps who cant hack it in Null, Low or High (the whiney no pvp ever hiseccer). Second, its a fallacy. Many small griefer corps can hack it in null. But you can't maintain playing in null without toons who can do logistics (transporting & such) and many entrances are camped to the point a dozen pvpers couldnt get through the bubbles. Let alone take on multi hundred man alliances.


I've been to null, I hacked it, I just didn't want to be there... I'm more of a casual player that enjoys the pve content, and every once in a while, I enjoy a little pvp.

Quote:
I know the logical response is to recruit logistics capable pilots, in the same light perhaps the high sec corps should recruit PVP players to defend them. For whatever reason the players in Hisec have not the means or desire to play in null and as such play in hisec.


Eve supports several different play styles. Of course, it's up to everyone to find way to prepare themselves for other types of gameplay.

Quote:
And again, war is free to declare. Gangs in Los Angeles do it all the time and never pay a cent. Fueling the war however, ammunition, equipment and manpower replacement, that takes money.


LOL, are you serious?? That's probably the worst example I've ever seen. First, In Eve you pay Concord to look the other way. A gang war in LA is still illegal and if they get busted, they're screwed. Also, it's a Fair fight when two gangs go to war. The LA gangs aren't exactly declaring war on Taco Bell employees.
Also, declaring war is not free. Think about when the US invaded Iraq. We not only had to pay to get a crap load of supplies and Soldiers to the middle east, but we also had to pay Kuwait to essentially house us to have a logistical advantage.
So, the costs of war decs would be more like Paying Kuwait to house our supplies and soldiers. Picture Concord as Kuwait.

Quote:
"Fair fights" is a term for arenas. Not war. There are no fairplay rules in war and if you do have a fair fight, you did it wrong.

"fair fights" Are a term not meant for the real world. However, last time I checked Eve wasn't the real world. However, My idea for overhead wasn't so much to support actual "fair fights", but more to suggest Balanced Wars. Meaning the numbers of the two warring corps will be closer together.

In order to promote "fair fights" CCP would have to implement something to force those deccing corps to actually fight, instead of sitting in stations, or cloaked up until they manage to find that one lone ship with no tank and crap for dps.
I love how they talk so much crap about beating the @sses of their targets, but when you look at their killmails it's a miner, a few untanked frigs, maybe a battle cruiser with no tank... Basically, the most pathetic "I Win" killmails I've ever seen whe it's like 6 on one.
So don't tell me I'm trying to promote "fair fights" because there's way too much crap that would have to be done to get those deccing griefer corps to "fight fair".
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-04-01 23:12:32 UTC
Bump
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-04-02 06:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

Certainly no worse than the chumps who cant hack it in Null, Low or High (the whiney no pvp ever hiseccer). Second, its a fallacy. Many small griefer corps can hack it in null. But you can't maintain playing in null without toons who can do logistics (transporting & such) and many entrances are camped to the point a dozen pvpers couldnt get through the bubbles. Let alone take on multi hundred man alliances.

"Sure we can hack it in null" followed by a list of excuses that show they clearly can't.

If you don't treat your logistics team with the respect they deserve for giving you the opportunity for PvP in the environment that is best suited for it, you don't deserve to play there.

Trying to bring that environment into highsec will drive people away from the game as a whole and is one of the stupidest ideas I've seen in a while.

Because there are a lot of people playing EvE who have no intention of ever being PvP players, and if you try to force them into PvP they have other games they can play.


Well the gameplay of EVE revolves around that style of play and that's not changing. So those players that never intend to pvp at all have a choice. Accept that while you might not fight back others will fight you at some point or go to that new game.

And I don't mistreat anyone. Skill points are rare in EVE. Or rather those who can actually operate effectively in null as a logistics runner are far more scarce than corporations in need.

To be blunt alot of people don't care for the headache of politics or the questionable definition of an ally and enemy in null. And laying on a guilt trip isn't going to curtail our opinion on it.

We aren't looking for fair fights. We're looking for kills. If you want fair go play checkers. If you are looking for equal opportunity, then we see eye to eye because you have that now in EVE.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-04-02 13:13:21 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


We aren't looking for fair fights. We're looking for kills. If you want fair go play checkers. If you are looking for equal opportunity, then we see eye to eye because you have that now in EVE.



I don't get this though.

I mean, sure I want kills too, but I don't want "easy button" kills. Well, easy button kills are kinda fun, but the kills that I'm looking for are those "Damn" kills.

Like taking out a Navy raven with a stealth bomber, without even launching a bomb.


The thing is though, with the system I've described in my OP, it's not about making sure everyone fights fair. My goal though is to at least make war cost something, and to at least make it more costly to try and just overwhelm them.

I mean, bringing an alliance of 500 to war dec a corp of 10 is a bit overdoing it. It's crap like that which makes players rage quit Eve cause they can't even play the game anymore.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-04-02 14:12:35 UTC
Another thing about the cost of a war dec. The price needs to be meaningful. You shouldn't be able to just run a single mission and automatically be able to declare war.

Isk in Eve has a relatively bad monatary value, so paying off Concord with 20 million isk is like paying the Chief of Police 100 bucks to let you attempt to kill this group of people.

So 200 and 500 mil is a reasonable price that isn't hard to earn, but isn't a LOL price either.
Xemnus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-04-03 04:05:49 UTC
Did CCP look at this yet?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-04-03 04:54:33 UTC
Xemnus wrote:
Did CCP look at this yet?

Probably not... they're still nursing themselves after fanfest
lady jailbait
ambertech industries
#36 - 2012-04-03 05:09:40 UTC
i with you on heavier penalties for those tryin to leave a dec'd corp
200mil to start a war is far too high to have ass a base tho
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#37 - 2012-04-03 10:11:47 UTC
Caius Sivaris wrote:
Lots of people wanting absolute safety in highsec here...


Lots of people escaping pvp where they should be doing it, null/low sec.

I heard saying those only pvp in high sec because they're safe, far too safe and that is the real problem.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-04-03 10:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Tanya Powers wrote:
Caius Sivaris wrote:
Lots of people wanting absolute safety in highsec here...


Lots of people escaping pvp where they should be doing it, null/low sec.

I heard saying those only pvp in high sec because they're safe, far too safe and that is the real problem.


Yawn. If you like null by all means go. Null is not the "pvp" area in EVE its the sovereignty available space in EVE. The PVP area of EVE is its entirety. You know this, you don't like it. Too bad, so sad.

The elementary level reverse psychology works on nitwits. A true griefer ignores your calls for mercy, your rage, your go there suggestions and pinpoint focuses on doing what they know irritates you the most. If vocalizing on the boards helps you deal with not being able to peacefully play EVE by all means do so, but don't delude yourself into thinking a griefer spends one minute contemplating how you feel they should play. The only time they entertain your thoughts are when they relive your frustration and angst by watching a great fraps'd kill. Or reading a letter of butthurt rage where its filled with morals, tears and other succulent releases of emotion.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-04-03 14:16:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
lady jailbait wrote:
i with you on heavier penalties for those tryin to leave a dec'd corp
200mil to start a war is far too high to have ass a base tho


200 mil is a completely fair price. It's not an unreachable number. Any corp can raise 200 mil in a say with no problems.


Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Yawn. If you like null by all means go. Null is not the "pvp" area in EVE its the sovereignty available space in EVE. The PVP area of EVE is its entirety. You know this, you don't like it. Too bad, so sad.

The elementary level reverse psychology works on nitwits. A true griefer ignores your calls for mercy, your rage, your go there suggestions and pinpoint focuses on doing what they know irritates you the most. If vocalizing on the boards helps you deal with not being able to peacefully play EVE by all means do so, but don't delude yourself into thinking a griefer spends one minute contemplating how you feel they should play. The only time they entertain your thoughts are when they relive your frustration and angst by watching a great fraps'd kill. Or reading a letter of butthurt rage where its filled with morals, tears and other succulent releases of emotion.


lol, ya know, when it comes to fighting those griefer corps, there's a really easy method to keep them at bay.
Fleet up an fight back. My alliance is currently in a war deck, so everyday we fleet up and go searching for them. Of course they never show.... It's pretty funny because these griefers are the same people that try and try to push more and more pvp, but when you actually confront them with actual pvp instead of just another easy gank for them, they freak out and bail.
Griefers aren't going to fight unless they're certain they won't lose. So, i've still been running around doing missions in my tengu cause they're isn't a single one of them that would fight me solo, and I bet they wouldn't attack a tengu with one of their full fleets.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-04-04 15:14:29 UTC
bump
Previous page123Next page