These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

War Declaration counter-bribe

Author
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#1 - 2013-06-20 19:15:58 UTC
Ladies, Gentlemen, Developers of EVE Online,

According to the story behind EVE, the explanation of the war declaration system is that the group which declares war (Offender) pays Concord to "look the other way" instead of intervening during a fight against their target (Defendant).

In theory, war in EVE is a fight between two groups to settle differences, claim territory (See: Player Owned Stations), or disrupt supply lines. A group declares war by paying Concord to prevent intervention, as well preventing standings loss and interference from system defenses.

In practice, it does get used as it was intended. However, there's a large and ugly side to it, and that is War Mongering.

War Mongering is a term used to describe the act of declaring war onto a selected weak (often Industrial) Defendant for the sake of carnage and/or ransoms; piracy, really, but instead of being outlaws, they dodge the law through bribes. By being able to select their targets, they can avoid confrontation with stronger groups, and then prey on their target until they've had their fill, or until the Defendant pays a ransom. In short, lots of benefit, little consequence.

To me, and many others, this represents a broken aspect of EVE Online.

Of course, I've heard plenty of arguments that claim that this is not broken. A Defendant can build up a PVP wing or hire Mercenaries. True, but the Offender merely avoids the patrols, and ambushes the Miners/Haulers/Newbies of the Defendant. Given that most War Mongers don't have any of these, the Defendant cannot do the same to the Offender.

You could just pay them off, but they'll be back again, this time with money to fuel their effort, so why bother? You could also avoid confrontation, but what this usually means is avoid playing EVE Online, since sitting at a station is about as boring as it gets. Truthfully, I've seen players quit the game entirely because of War Mongers, and while the Mongers and PVPers view that as an achievement, CCP is the one losing.

Wars are justified by the costs associated; you pay Concord, and a bigger Defendant will cost more, thus justifying your ability to terrorize a target, no matter the reason behind it. CCP changed this system to balance the costs more accurately, fluctuating with the population of the Defendant. However, the cost is still pathetically low; 50mil isk + extra for every member above 50. Intially, that's 1/10th of a Plex, and at most, it'll cost you a whole plex (the costs cap at 500mil). This is hardly a deterrent.

Onto the solution; allow Defendants to counter-bribe Concord. It's as simple as that. They would need to pay the same amount as the Offender initially. Then, a bidding system after the initial payments, with increments of 50mil, so that the Offender and Defendant can war with their wallets before their ships. Reset the bid timer every time a new bid is placed to allow time for each side to respond, maybe 6, 12, at most 24 hours.

If the Offender succeeds at outbidding the Defendant, the next week's cost is the default; again, the Defendant will be offered to counter this cost, and the bidding would restart. If the Defendant succeeds at outbidding the Offender, the war is null and void. Regardless of who wins the bids, both sides pay their bids, ensuring the winner gains an advantage for having spent so much, and the loser is not simply pushing the costs to have their opponent pay more.

There's plenty of advantages to this, among which this provides a major isk sink. This is a simple request, and a logical one; after all, if an Offender can pay Concord to look away, why can't a Defendant pay Concord to protect him?

Regards,
Lex Azevedo
EVE Online Player for over 7 years
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2 - 2013-06-20 19:33:29 UTC
I will go you one better.

Allow a corp to pay bribes to concord to prevent this from happening in the first place, possibly even setting up an entire legal division of Concord with Agents throughout all areas of space where Concord operates where you could take a variety of missions, to build faction and redeem LP's for some Concord items, and to which payments could be made to set up a defense fund.

The fund would have to be paid out by the aggressors before the fee for a wardec could be payed for. The defending corp's payments into the defense fund would be increased (or decreased) based on Faction with Concord, with items redeemable in the LP store that would provide large boosts.

This would open warfare to a new dimension, where the defenders could attempt to defend themselves by running up their defense fund and cancelling the wardec, giving them a reason to leave the station and expose themselves to the war Of course the aggressors could continue to pay down the defense fund, giving them more reason to actively hunt the defenders to keep them from completing their Concord missions.

There is more to PvP than Pew, especially in EVE. Those who specialize in other areas of the game should be able to compete with their specialty against those who specialize in direct combat.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#3 - 2013-06-20 19:35:49 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is more to PvP than Pew, especially in EVE. Those who specialize in other areas of the game should be able to compete with their specialty against those who specialize in direct combat.

I couldn't agree more.
Mole Guy
Deep Space Coalition
A Class Apart
#4 - 2013-06-20 19:55:57 UTC
or,
make the aggressor pay every time and the defendant only pay if he is the highest bidder..

lets say you declare war on me. 50 mil.
i bribe up to 75 mil. you counter with 100. i rest

now, itll cost you 100 mil.

we could barter to 1 bil at which point it just becomes too difficult for the aggressor to pay. its over.


or, i could counter up to 750m knowing you will continue to bid and itll cost you 10x what you might earn from taking me to war in the first place.
you pay 750m a week and we stay out of high sec. you cannot gank, cannot make bank role and get bored.

end of war. didnt cost me a dime.

the aggressor will always pay his bid, but the defendant will only pay if they are outbid.
would be a way for null sec corps to avoid war or make it so damn costly for those high sec gankers they go elsewhere.
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
#5 - 2013-06-20 21:18:00 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
or,
make the aggressor pay every time and the defendant only pay if he is the highest bidder..

lets say you declare war on me. 50 mil.
i bribe up to 75 mil. you counter with 100. i rest

now, itll cost you 100 mil.

we could barter to 1 bil at which point it just becomes too difficult for the aggressor to pay. its over.


or, i could counter up to 750m knowing you will continue to bid and itll cost you 10x what you might earn from taking me to war in the first place.
you pay 750m a week and we stay out of high sec. you cannot gank, cannot make bank role and get bored.

end of war. didnt cost me a dime.

the aggressor will always pay his bid, but the defendant will only pay if they are outbid.
would be a way for null sec corps to avoid war or make it so damn costly for those high sec gankers they go elsewhere.


I disagree with your entire premise but: You lose all the isk on any bid regardless if you win or not. If you think about how someone might game the system, you will understand why.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#6 - 2013-06-20 21:39:46 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
or,
make the aggressor pay every time and the defendant only pay if he is the highest bidder..

lets say you declare war on me. 50 mil.
i bribe up to 75 mil. you counter with 100. i rest

now, itll cost you 100 mil.

we could barter to 1 bil at which point it just becomes too difficult for the aggressor to pay. its over.


or, i could counter up to 750m knowing you will continue to bid and itll cost you 10x what you might earn from taking me to war in the first place.
you pay 750m a week and we stay out of high sec. you cannot gank, cannot make bank role and get bored.

end of war. didnt cost me a dime.

the aggressor will always pay his bid, but the defendant will only pay if they are outbid.
would be a way for null sec corps to avoid war or make it so damn costly for those high sec gankers they go elsewhere.


I disagree with your entire premise but: You lose all the isk on any bid regardless if you win or not. If you think about how someone might game the system, you will understand why.


Agreed, its better that they both pay. War Mongering shouldn't be banned, simply not so easily done, as it is now.
Luc Chastot
#7 - 2013-06-20 21:40:04 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
or,
make the aggressor pay every time and the defendant only pay if he is the highest bidder..

lets say you declare war on me. 50 mil.
i bribe up to 75 mil. you counter with 100. i rest

now, itll cost you 100 mil.

we could barter to 1 bil at which point it just becomes too difficult for the aggressor to pay. its over.


or, i could counter up to 750m knowing you will continue to bid and itll cost you 10x what you might earn from taking me to war in the first place.
you pay 750m a week and we stay out of high sec. you cannot gank, cannot make bank role and get bored.

end of war. didnt cost me a dime.

the aggressor will always pay his bid, but the defendant will only pay if they are outbid.
would be a way for null sec corps to avoid war or make it so damn costly for those high sec gankers they go elsewhere.

Interesting idea; an improvement would be to just make both sides pay and if the defender wins the bid, he'll receive his money back.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#8 - 2013-06-20 22:18:18 UTC
The way I presented it is similar, except the defending corp paid in advance. The aggressing corp has to match the defense fund + the cost of the wardec itself.

I would work it so the aggressing corp does not know how much is in the defense fund, Concord takes their money and tells them that judicial review finds their petition to be erroneous, and that the responsible employees were found to be corrupt and have been terminated. Any amount the aggressor put up over the base cost of the wardec would directly subtract from the defense fund.

I would make it so that once a wardec was declared it would require a 'Judicial inquiry" purchased from the LP store to end it, and that it would follow the same sort of timers declaring war in the first place did, only in reverse. If the defending corp has not recharged their defense fund it could simply be re-declared as normal, If they have then the defense fund has to be overcome again.

Thus wars could be fought, but the fighting itself isn't without attendant risks. Multiple wardec attempts would wear down the fund, as could one aggressor with sufficiently deep pockets.

Make sure the LP store has few, if any, combat oriented offerings so as to make missioning for the Concord Legal faction less profitable in the absence of a war. Instead it could have upgraded sensors, perhaps some better sensor scripts, possibly "Scouting Reports" that grant bookmarks to sites that can be run for Concord faction, that sort of thing.
Minera Toranen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-06-21 12:38:38 UTC
+1, makes sense, solves problems.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2013-06-21 14:43:44 UTC
Sinks moar isk +1
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#11 - 2013-06-21 15:08:59 UTC
This is a pretty elegant solution to this problem. Deals with the problem, makes the risk vs the reward about where it should be in a non-violent way. It as an ISK sink is just a fantastic bonus.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?

Dar Tel
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-06-21 22:04:44 UTC
Interesting topic. I hope you guys find a solution Big smile

(I have already cancelled my 1-year subscription accounts, and plan to leave Eve in about a month.
The past 6 months we have been war dec'ed 9 times. One offender told me to pay 500m ISK or face losses.
I don't mind trying to defend the corp, with combat ships. But seeing my younger pilots loosing their industry ships every second week wears me down.)
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2013-06-22 10:31:48 UTC
May I please have your stuff when you leave?

Its relatively easy to corp hop, and now with dual training, I have a 2nd toon on each of my accounts that i can use when my main toon for each account gets wardecced.

And then I've got 1 semi trained toon still in an NPC corp

New players should not be losing their stuff - war decced = don't undock in an indy ship.

Switch to a non wardecced toon for that stuff
Dar Tel
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-06-22 12:16:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dar Tel
Verity Sovereign wrote:
May I please have your stuff when you leave?

Its relatively easy to corp hop, and now with dual training, I have a 2nd toon on each of my accounts that i can use when my main toon for each account gets wardecced.

And then I've got 1 semi trained toon still in an NPC corp

New players should not be losing their stuff - war decced = don't undock in an indy ship.

Switch to a non wardecced toon for that stuff


Brilliant solution eh? (irony)
Why would a player care about the corp he is in, if it's just another alt among others?
And if the solution was for everyone to have alts, it would look good... see Eve Online accounts are still going up, yay!
More people playing Eve? Or just more alts?

I have to say that I find the logic of trying to address the issues, which this thread is doing, makes a whole lot more sense
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#15 - 2013-06-23 02:54:56 UTC
Dar Tel wrote:
But seeing my younger pilots loosing their industry ships every second week wears me down.


Precisely what inspired me to come up with this solution.
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2013-06-23 03:29:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirkwood Ross
The idea that an industrial hi-sec corp can deter war-decs by making isk with their industrial abilities and then paying concord more than the aggressor is interesting. Both sides lose isk regardless if the dec goes live. Whoever makes the most isk with their skill set can win before a fight even starts. Interesting.
FoxFire Ayderan
#17 - 2013-06-23 09:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: FoxFire Ayderan
Love it!

I know a group of Whores who would wind up paying through the nose!

Or more likely not, as they would be getting bid up so high it wouldn't be worth it to them.

The anger and frustration this would cause these victimizers is priceless. Why should their victims be the ones to quit EVE in frustration. If they don't like being unable to PvP on PvEers at bargain-basement prices, then tough, they can go find another game that let's them be the bullies they so desire to be. Or they can grow a pair and learn to PvP against other actual PvPers.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-06-23 09:49:43 UTC
+1

I guess if you do implement this stuff, you'd also have to give the wardec-bears what they want about the ability to bail out of a corp at war. It wouldn't be quite fair if they paied 50mil, then you countered with 75mil and they recountered with 100mil and everyone bails from the targeted corp. Also on the flip side, if you do counter and they recounter, their members shouldn't be able to bail out either, just in case you give them a gooder fight than they anticipated.

agreed?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#19 - 2013-06-23 23:19:24 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
+1

I guess if you do implement this stuff, you'd also have to give the wardec-bears what they want about the ability to bail out of a corp at war. It wouldn't be quite fair if they paied 50mil, then you countered with 75mil and they recountered with 100mil and everyone bails from the targeted corp. Also on the flip side, if you do counter and they recounter, their members shouldn't be able to bail out either, just in case you give them a gooder fight than they anticipated.

agreed?



Nope. Problem is that wardecs dec the corp, not the players. If all the members leave the corp, then the corp is destroyed---they win the war. Money well spent. The system proposed gives the decced corp a reasonable way to fight without combat pilots. It expands the concept of warfare to the other areas of EVE.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-06-24 01:38:26 UTC
This...Is a good idea.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

123Next pageLast page