These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Current Flaws of the Wardec Mechanic and Highsec Space

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#21 - 2011-10-25 18:11:08 UTC
I have to say a few things about the issue which mostly goes back to my Castle vs Crashers arguement.

If you make hurting players too easy why would they bother playing?

If you make it to hurt to hurt players why would you attack them?

And i have to agree with Ingvar Angst REMOVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Lttle Femke
Street Birds
#22 - 2011-10-28 10:03:42 UTC
Myxx wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
To reiterate past posts: There is a big reason many people want nothing to do with PvP combat: They do not get The Rush.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like.

You cannot PvP with someone, or war dec them, if they do not play the game. Forcing people into PvP situations over and over will do nothing but force many of them out of the game.

To summarize: Any improvement to the war dec system must allow for people who get no pleasure from PvP combat, or subscriptions will suffer.



The problem with this is that any wardec system that allows for doging wars is no better than the current one. Dodging wars as it stands is done primarily because of the total dickwad equation and that people don't like to be held accountable for their **** attitudes.


As was said though, do you wish to reduce numbers in the game by trying to force people who will refuse pvp at any cost, and you can never stop another player from signing out to avoid your wardec. As for wardecs being caused by others dickwad attitudes as you say, your as much wrong as you are right. I have been in corps that have been wardecced totally out of the blue by merc corps who are bored, Hi sec ganker corps who just pick a corp out of the hat, corps you have never had any communication with etc etc., so perhaps the dickwads in many cases are the idiots who just fancy a little hi sec corp ganking in the name of wardec hmmm?
Myxx
The Scope
#23 - 2011-10-28 13:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
I'll grant you that much that thats the flipside of that coin.

I'm also apparently not the only person complaining about it. That guy has some good ideas, I'll give him that.
Integra Arkanheld
Andorra Paradis Fiscal
#24 - 2011-10-28 13:38:08 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
highsec is for carebears, not pvpers, so move on.

Wardecs are meant just as crutch for those who dont want to leave high sec but still pewing others.



In the same way that incursions change the way empire is for players, during wars, both corps involved, should have their characteristics changed like in incursions. Also of course, changing the way now players protect themselves in stations should be changed (for example, if someone is at war, and targets another players(friend or foe), he should not be able to dock for 15min). Having the corps have bad consequences for being at war (like reduced NPC bounties...), would make them more willing to be active in the war, and the war system mechanic would have more meaning.

On the other hand, High sec, should be even more protective than now for players not in war. For example, ships should not be able to target players that are not in their fleet, or corp, or alliance. Suicide attacks on empire are becoming a problem with things like hulkageddon, or suicide attacks on players industrials, or the goons making extortion on ice mining players. With the new battle cruisers, there will be even more suicide attacks. If players want to PVP, they can do it in low sec, 0.0, and empire doing WARs.
There should be room in the game for all type of players, also for the ones not liking PVP.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#25 - 2011-10-28 14:00:09 UTC
Integra Arkanheld wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
highsec is for carebears, not pvpers, so move on.

Wardecs are meant just as crutch for those who dont want to leave high sec but still pewing others.

There should be room in the game for all type of players, also for the ones not liking PVP.


if you don't want to PVP, please go back to WOW.

Market -- PVP
Mining / Industry -- PVP (hey, those combat pilots had to get their ships/modules/ammo from somewhere)
Combat / War / Ganks -- PVP
Ninja Salvage -- PVP
Can Baiting -- PVP
Stealing Loot (mission trigger, ore, whetever) -- PVP
Flying in Space -- PVP
Walking in Stations -- PVP Coming Soon! (tm)
Ship Spinning -- PV ... hm, OK, this one isn't (but you can PVP whilst doing so)
Accepting a Mission -- not PVP
Undocking to actually do the mission -- see "Flying in Space"

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#26 - 2011-10-28 14:20:46 UTC
I'm going to disagree with the OP, but not because of anything actually presented. Mainly, because of human nature and the simple fact that, if high sec becomes more dangerous, it'll be bad for Eve as a whole. There are, quite simply, carebears out there. They prefer to play a simpler, less dangerous style of play. They're content with mining away their days, or spending hours hauling someone else's cargo for them. They're satisfied running missions for isk and avoiding PvP. This isn't an indictment on any particular group, it's simply who some people are. People need to understand... you can't forcably change someone else's basic nature. You can't take safety away from people and expect them to suddenly become null sec demons ripping a swathe of distruction across the universe. You can't force them to fight and create warriors.

All you'll do is alienate them. Or, to put it simply... you can't take the sand out of someone's sandbox and expect them to play in the sandbox you want them to. They'll simply look at their empty box and go home. It's easy to think of changes that make the game more fun for you... the challenge is to think of changes that make the game more fun as a whole for the majority.

Sadly, CCP is missing this completely with the PI changes... but that's another thread...

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Integra Arkanheld
Andorra Paradis Fiscal
#27 - 2011-10-28 15:21:27 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Integra Arkanheld wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
highsec is for carebears, not pvpers, so move on.

Wardecs are meant just as crutch for those who dont want to leave high sec but still pewing others.

There should be room in the game for all type of players, also for the ones not liking PVP.


if you don't want to PVP, please go back to WOW.

Market -- PVP
Mining / Industry -- PVP (hey, those combat pilots had to get their ships/modules/ammo from somewhere)
Combat / War / Ganks -- PVP
Ninja Salvage -- PVP
Can Baiting -- PVP
Stealing Loot (mission trigger, ore, whetever) -- PVP
Flying in Space -- PVP
Walking in Stations -- PVP Coming Soon! (tm)
Ship Spinning -- PV ... hm, OK, this one isn't (but you can PVP whilst doing so)
Accepting a Mission -- not PVP
Undocking to actually do the mission -- see "Flying in Space"


If you want PVP, please leave high security space
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2011-11-22 03:51:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephiroth Clone VII
I got a idea to fix it without any too weird changes, have it be that if the war is against a alliance if a corp hops out of alliance the wardec remains active for a week duration on the corp in addition to the alliance with no additional cost to the war deckers, or as long as the war deck is going. If people leave a corp war decked the war remains on their individual characters, a week or as long as corp is at war.

Though, to make it so things not endless, have a two week limit on wars, concord has to show face and not accept bribes forever for looking the other way. and after coming out of a war a group has a week reprival from any future wars. Convention nonsense forces peace to happen sometimes.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-11-22 07:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ismaus Taeus
There should be a realistic simulation done by CCP, consisting of all the elements needed to run society in EVE. That ranges from player mining and asteroid yield percentage, and the impact player mining would have on such said asteroid mineral content/regeneration ~ to station resources/consumption, CONCORD manufacturing/automation, and planetary civilization/colonies <- which would further result in a more realistic impact on the EVE economy.

And in such a case where rare/critical ores and elements are found, and thus have a slow regen/repopulation rate, namely in null/lowsec, nullsec corps and alliances would need to be proactive in securing the best areas where resources are strained. If everyone has infinite resources, all the time, everywhere, then you have no realistic need for wars or, in that case, sovereignty. All that makes playing EVE online good for are bragging rights, and the size of your ship. There's no dynamic.

Take all plausible resources capable of being used, slap some numbers into a TI-82, and run a sim. There's your (plausible) answer for all the crybabyness of the carebear/anti-pvp'ers who love highsec. Why move to nullsec when you can do everything in the game within high/lowsec and still pump out billions of ISK? <- and even if that isn't all true, there's no real incentive for anyone to move out of their current comfort zones.

....

I realize this is a better topic on its own. I guess the subject here is too far in depth for discussing the legitimacy of war and war dec, although it's entirely dependent on economic tactics.
Jaketh Ivanes
Rigorous Rivals
#30 - 2011-11-22 09:59:45 UTC
There is no flaw in the war dec mechanic.

It basically allows you to shoot the other guy, without Concord interferring. It does not guarantee he will show up for a fight.
If you want any additional rights as an attacker, there should be equal rights for the defender, a counter tool to be precise.

Avoiding a fight is a vaild tactic, be it hiding in a station or cloaking up in a system. You cannot advoid the actual war declaration, but you can advoid the fighting. Sounds fair to me.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-11-22 13:11:57 UTC
Shad0wsFury wrote:
And people think a few jaded bittervets unsubbing and shooting the JIta monument made a splash, just imagine the EPIC TEARS this would generate from the "EVE is too dangerous" crowd.

I totally agree, however, that there SHOULD be better game mechanics to handle wars. It's not so much I agree with what the OP said, which I sorta do, it's more about the ISK.

I would guess that most of the EVE veterans out there make isk through some sort of alt, or alt corp/alliance. That makes it difficult to attack their infrastructure directly, unless you can gain some inside information. Say, for example, that I did or said something to REALLY make someone mad. Mad enough to wardec me and (lol) Pandemic Legion. Not only would I find this marvelously hilarious, it's also pretty useless and probably more than borderline self destructive. If you don't know why, maybe you should move on to another poast. But hey, even if I wasn't in PL, there is very little you can accomplish with an empire war if your opponents refuse to undock or fight. Either way, what you accomplish with said war is pretty much nothing, except wasting your isk on a wardec in the first place.

If someone REALLY wanted to hurt me, they would have to figure out how to discover who my alts are, what corp(s) they're in, which ones are there to make lots and lots of isk, and where those assets are so that they can attack them. They would then have to wardec my ALT CORP and go after my alt's assets, and even then, it's very likely I could just dodge the attack anyway.

That's a long, convoluted process just to achieve the objective of "getting back" at me for something I did.

Long story short, nothing short of adding some sort of mechanic where people can't hid behind their alts is going to change much. This would also be a pretty unpopular move, because to make sure nobody could hide behind their alts, some sort of IP address matching would probably need to take place, and WELP there go all the spies in EVE which drive most of the actual PvP now. Not to mention CCP would probably have to address shared accounts. Oh wait, nobody shares accounts, nevermind, it never happens anyway :rolleyes:. Prolly not very realistic to hope for this change.

Also, since someone is gonna bring it up, if we're talking about people who don't have alts set up to make isk for them, there's a good chance they're empire pubbies and who really cares about them anyway l0l


If you want evil simplicity for this:

Allow bribing of EVE's banking system to show all cash/item transfers. There sits your OOC alt's that you send and get funds only while wars are active.

You'd watch ballistic reactions from the vets if such were available. You wardec, they look up YOUR alts but you can see theirs too...

It'd add a whole new definition to "bounty hunting" as they hired assassins to suicide your alts. Oops
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#32 - 2011-11-23 07:51:13 UTC
The amount of people saying "highsec is too secure" when meaning "give me free, risk-less ganks" never ceases to amaze me.

Wardec mechanic needs to be revised, that's for sure. But corp-hopping has become a legitimate means to avoid griefdecs, at least as long as there hasn't been done anything to wardecs.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-11-23 08:36:34 UTC
You want to live in highsec? -> you make less ISK.
You like being a nuisance? -> move to lowsec. make more ISK.
You desire to be rich and successful? -> go to nullsec.


That's how it should be. But that isn't how EVE is designed, now is it?
Vio Geraci
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2011-11-23 18:45:35 UTC
1. Literally every activity in EVE Online should make more ISK in dangerous space than in high-sec. Jita trading being a necessary but unfortunate exception. Players willing to cope with the danger (and there should be real danger) should earn more ISK for performing the same activities. Hopefully we'll see some more of this in the year to come, with the possibility of a highsec t2 nerf.

2. There should be more ways of placing ourselves in direct competition with other players. Most of the high-sec forms of PvP are diffused and mediated: competing with a player on the market is anonymous and nobody ever knows when you fail. There should be more paths of direct competition with other players, especially people that never undock. These same tools should be usable against people that are all PvP, all the time. I don't know what that solution would be, but it might be something like paying a fee to increase a player's market transactions for a week, for example. Economic warfare should be more viable than it currently is in high-sec.

3. The war system should follow people around if they jump corporations. There shouldn't be an alliance war shield mechanic. These things need to be addressed. I wish the whole "I earn isk on my other alt you will never know about" thing had a good solution, too, but I don't think it does.

4. One way to make PvP in wars more palatable is to have there be an incentive to fight. Have part of the war declaration fee be recouped from successful PvP, for example. Another way is to make it more predictable, perhaps by limiting participants' ship choices. Another way is to allow the recipients of the war to somehow end the war declaration via victory on the battlefield. CCP would need to develop a real metric for ship loss in this case, which I think would cause quite a few headaches.

In short, very few people think the war system is anything other than a collection of half-fixes, but fixing it needs to not ruin EVE for players that dislike unpredictable, reward-less direct competition.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-11-23 21:08:47 UTC
Cpt Fina wrote:
Agree with the general sentiment of it being too hard to hurt people, not only in high sec but any NPC space. IMO more assets should be placed in space and being subject for attacks. Like your personal ship-hangar should not be totally safe from attacks imo. The more privelages and abilities one have in Eve the more voulnerable you should be. But this should go the other way too, in order to wage war you should be required to hold some kind of asset that can be attacked by the decced party.

This should be coupled with a heavy increase to tax for players in NPC corporations and a restriction to what they can do in the game, for example disable Battleships, T2 and T3 ships.


Yeah and anyone in a player owned alliance or corp should be shoot on sight with no Concorde consequences in Hi-sec, they shouldn't be able to use anything smaller than a BS, no EWar, and no nuets. They should give half their isk too anyone they they shoot at and lose skillpoints. Hows that for fair?
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-23 21:31:04 UTC
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
You want to live in highsec? -> you make less ISK.
You like being a nuisance? -> move to lowsec. make more ISK.
You desire to be rich and successful? -> go to nullsec.


That's how it should be. But that isn't how EVE is designed, now is it?


And who is it that has fleets of bot miners producing huge Super-Cap fleets because of all the money they make? I'll give you a little hint. Its not hi-sec mission runners or miners.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-11-24 01:01:28 UTC
Zyress wrote:
Ismaus Taeus wrote:
You want to live in highsec? -> you make less ISK.
You like being a nuisance? -> move to lowsec. make more ISK.
You desire to be rich and successful? -> go to nullsec.


That's how it should be. But that isn't how EVE is designed, now is it?


And who is it that has fleets of bot miners producing huge Super-Cap fleets because of all the money they make? I'll give you a little hint. Its not hi-sec mission runners or miners.

Oh I get what you are saying all too well my friend. People who make enough money to buy infinite PLEX can have infinite number of alts robo-mining every system. So, basically, EVE is overrun with autonomous accounts/players. Which is a grave problem.

But being the solution-finder that I am...

I was thinking of a good way to counter auto-miners / ISK faucets, by CCP implementing some sort of function with asteroids and ice/gas clouds that depletes actual mineral content, which would also regenerate over a set period of time - and should be balanced based on the location of space (eg high/low/nullsec).

I have a thread I've started I'm trying to get support on, but It's been quite derailed at the moment...

I know a lot of people will be angry if something like this was implemented. But really, lets be fair about this.

(PS - Forum Mods, please please PLEASE fix this forum... I've lost several LONG and well-thought out messages because, maybe the server times out or whatever, when I press "Post" or "Preview" the page reloads and the ENTIRE message is LOST... if you haven't already copied it. I shouldn't have to clipboard my message each time I post. Thanks in advance!Blink )
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#38 - 2011-11-24 02:59:10 UTC
Vio Geraci wrote:
1. Literally every activity in EVE Online should make more ISK in dangerous space than in high-sec. Jita trading being a necessary but unfortunate exception. Players willing to cope with the danger (and there should be real danger) should earn more ISK for performing the same activities. Hopefully we'll see some more of this in the year to come, with the possibility of a highsec t2 nerf.

2. There should be more ways of placing ourselves in direct competition with other players. Most of the high-sec forms of PvP are diffused and mediated: competing with a player on the market is anonymous and nobody ever knows when you fail. There should be more paths of direct competition with other players, especially people that never undock. These same tools should be usable against people that are all PvP, all the time. I don't know what that solution would be, but it might be something like paying a fee to increase a player's market transactions for a week, for example. Economic warfare should be more viable than it currently is in high-sec.

3. The war system should follow people around if they jump corporations. There shouldn't be an alliance war shield mechanic. These things need to be addressed. I wish the whole "I earn isk on my other alt you will never know about" thing had a good solution, too, but I don't think it does.

4. One way to make PvP in wars more palatable is to have there be an incentive to fight. Have part of the war declaration fee be recouped from successful PvP, for example. Another way is to make it more predictable, perhaps by limiting participants' ship choices. Another way is to allow the recipients of the war to somehow end the war declaration via victory on the battlefield. CCP would need to develop a real metric for ship loss in this case, which I think would cause quite a few headaches.

In short, very few people think the war system is anything other than a collection of half-fixes, but fixing it needs to not ruin EVE for players that dislike unpredictable, reward-less direct competition.


I wrote a giant response but the forum ate it so here is it in bullet points:

1. Yes, but that dosen't mean that things in highsec shouldn't have risk attached, but I don't think you were suggesting that.
2. Yes.
3. There is a problem here. Often you can be at war with a highsec alliance for several months and have the precise goal of causing them to lose members. While I'm in no way against being able to shoot people who drop corp I think it should be time limited so that people can actually run away who are legitimately trying to run away.
4. You can already get out of wars by beating the aggressor, aggressors won't pay to continue wars they aren't winning in in the cases where for some reason they do all a defender has to do is continue to win fights until the aggressor gives up. People who are suggesting gameplay mechanics that end wars early probably aren't people who can actually win highsec wars and probably are looking to get new mechanics added so that they can look for exploits to use to make themselves harder to dec.

Also limiting the ships people who are at war can use makes no kind of sense, is horribly unsandboxy, would defy the point of alot of wars to begin with since often you're after freighters, T3s or faction battleships and would almost certainly be exploitable.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2011-11-24 04:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ismaus Taeus
Vio Geraci wrote:
1. Literally every activity in EVE Online should make more ISK in dangerous space than in high-sec. Jita trading being a necessary but unfortunate exception. ...

2. There should be more ways of placing ourselves in direct competition with other players. ...

3. The war system should follow people around if they jump corporations. ...

4. One way to make PvP in wars more palatable is to have there be an incentive to fight. ...

In short, very few people think the war system is anything other than a collection of half-fixes, but fixing it needs to not ruin EVE for players that dislike unpredictable, reward-less direct competition.
1. I talked about this a bit earlier, at least I hope I have, regarding a simulation of resources already being pre-drained by other CCP entities (stations, planet colonies, CONCORD, other NPCs/NPEs) in highsec space, which would make sense since most of EVE civilization is based there. The resources would have a higher respawn rate, because of the higher player density, but would be less as a whole. Until players start moving towards lowsec and nullsec space the resource availability should increase, since many of those resources would remain untapped by nature, however there should be a lower rate of resource regeneration as it becomes more of a player-oriented transaction - say, by increasing the difficulty of mining as a rule.

2. War should have mutual meaning. I mean, you can't force everyone to fight if, one, they have no involvement with the war, two, if it's involuntarily declared on their corp or alliance, and thrice, if they feel it is of NO BENEFIT to them or their corps. What are people really fighting for anyway? For the shíts and giggles? LULZ....

3. You can buy PLEX on the market, and you can mass-farm with alts to pump out ISK. Again, the economy in EVE is bloated with an infinite supply of resources. If you will, should we attack the source of the problem (resource availability / ISK conversion) in such a way it doesn't damage the already-existing market, but provides balance so that people and their 90 alt characters can't mass-farm as easily. There may still be a significant advantage to a player who uses alt characters, but their success will only be limited (then) by their greed.

4. Exactly my point, however not quite. There should be incentive, but it should not be forced on the player or corp. It should be a general game dynamic - an actual competition for something. Not to entirely rule out what you're saying though, because victories SHOULD count for something. But as far as EVE goes, it's just random battles on the frontier...
Spawne32
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-11-24 05:20:24 UTC
Oh look, another complaint about pirates not being able to go into high sec to kill people. Its hard to believe that CCP caters to this bullshit that people complain about. The constant complaints about not being able to gank people in high sec because its "too secure" are because they cant put up a decent enough fight in null sec pvp and constantly lose ships, so they would rather camp outside a station in a trade hub like jita, wait for someone to undock with a couple million items in cargo, suicide gank, abandon the wreck, and let a alt character pick up the loot.

The reason high sec is so secure is because there needs to be an entire section of space off limits from pvp activitys just like every other MMORPG. You kids using your mom's credit card to pay for the game every month forget that people pay out of pocket monthly for this game, if they dont want to be involved in pvp, then they shouldnt have to be at risk every time they undock.

I was just talking to corp members today about putting faction items on my ships because i bought some plex and resold it, and everyone of them advised not to do it, and im a high sec player no less. Curious as to why this would be a problem they explained in detail about how people sit at gates with alt characters, or other corp members that have good standing, they suicide gank, and someone else loots the wreck with your faction loot.

This once again brings me back to the point ive been making over the past week, there is absolutely no buffer zone between null sec and high sec, you hit .5 space and thats it, that is the border before you are in your ****** zone. I tried to move a faction pulse laser today out of a station in a .4 system into a .5 system, and a guy sat there waiting for me to come out of the station, while the station gun was BLASTING HIM, he popped me before my screen even loaded, my pod all but seconds later. This **** needs to be corrected. Low sec security needs to actually resemble SECURITY.