These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War dec Fees
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#81 - 2014-11-19 16:37:21 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

I love it when high sec squatters calling out other high sec squatters for being carebears :D
Go low, WH or 0.0 there you'll receive lots of pew pew.
You are amongst those people hiding under free protection of CONCORD, or what exactly is the reason you live in HS?

Friend, highsec mechanics make me a criminal and I am thus exempt from the protections offered by CONCORD. Highsec is lowsec to me at all times - worse in fact with that pesky facpo always after me.

I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox.

This is really off-topic now so in an attempt to get this back on topic: Tora's suggestion is an interesting one I support, but wardecs are too easily dodged now to the point where they have failed to reach the goal of supporting vibrant highsec PvP and nurturing the profession of "mercenary" envisioned by the game designers (as described in the dev blog). But the current system of increased cost for the wardeccing of larger corps seems punitive to smaller corps. Do see any issue changing it as Tora proposes?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Helios Panala
#82 - 2014-11-19 16:52:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
Komi Toran wrote:
Helios Panala wrote:
They would have over 1000 systems to hide it in.

Let's stop right there. If it's true that a corporation can drop this anywhere in high-sec and the target corp doesn't get an idea of where it is, then it defeats the purpose as it's impractical for moderate-sized corps to survey the known universe every time they get wardecced.


It's only a rough idea, however I did suggest that the defenders should be able to set up their own device to slowly narrow down the attackers POS location.
Rough time frame of maybe 24hr after the war goes live it tells you the region, 24h later the Constellation, then 3 possible systems, then the system, then the planet, then the exact moon. Attackers would of course be free to assault the defender POS and kill the device just as defenders would be free to assault the wardeccers POS to end the war.

Essentially it gives HS miners and mission runners the (possibly delusional) hope that they can win a war on their own terms and therefore gives them some impetus to stay in corp and log in.
It gives both sides some bait to try and draw the other into fighting, kill the command facility of the attacker or the triangulation device of the defender.
Also due to reasonably long triangulation time corps that just enjoy throwing out decs and camping trade hubs still get almost the full week of doing it. If they're worried they can't defend the POS they can just take it all down to automatically surrender.



EDIT: This is off topic anyway, the OP suggestion is not quite enough in my opinion but it a good suggestion all the same.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#83 - 2014-11-19 16:52:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Consensual PvP sure isn't part of that meaning, no matter what carebears tell themselves to justify their risk aversion.


pvp is unconsensual, thats true. You always can agress, kill ships in HS even without wardec.
What you are talking about are war declarations against player corporations, people can freely join or leave as they feel - which exactly reflects the principles of consensual pvp, depending of what price you are willing to pay pvp can be seen as consensual or non-consensual.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Well, that shows what you know about it.
It's nowhere close to ten years old. Do you even bother learning about what you're talking about, or just spew carebear talking points?

well then tell me when CCP introduced mechanics preventing random HS folks being agressed by other people freely.


Black Pedro wrote:
I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox.

game is woking fine for you apparently.

Black Pedro wrote:

This is really off-topic now so in an attempt to get this back on topic: Tora's suggestion is an interesting one I support, but wardecs are too easily dodged now to the point where they have failed to reach the goal of supporting vibrant highsec PvP and nurturing the profession of "mercenary" envisioned by the game designers (as described in the dev blog). But the current system of increased cost for the wardeccing of larger corps seems punitive to smaller corps. Do see any issue changing it as Tora proposes?


I spawned my discussion to one of the later replies to original suggestion not the topic starter himself. I have no strict opinion about original topic.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#84 - 2014-11-19 17:02:35 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

So why should people be able to avoid having their assets like this?


why should they not? You gave a special case of 0.0 alliance logistics as argument, which are
in fact just a small subset of all HS players; what you asking for is a nerf of whole HS population just
to cather your needs to interrupt 0.0 logistics?



Thats not a special case, a special case is two corps going to war willingly with each other for "gudfights".

What I am asking for is some sort of level playing field
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#85 - 2014-11-19 17:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
baltec1 wrote:

Thats not a special case, a special case is two corps going to war willingly with each other for "gudfights".

What I am asking for is some sort of level playing field


regardless of how much I would love undodgeable wardecs against GSF logistics corps,
freighters passing HS (not even living there) from Jita to northern 0.0 really are a special case and a
small subset of HS population.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#86 - 2014-11-19 17:08:35 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:


regardless of how much I would love undodgeable wardecs against GSF logistics corps,
0.0 freighters passing HS (not even living there) from Jita to northern 0.0 really are a special case and a
small subset of HS population.


Attacking other peoples assets however is not a small subset.

As it stands war decs heavily favor the defender.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#87 - 2014-11-19 17:13:16 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

Black Pedro wrote:
I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox.

game is woking fine for you apparently.

Indeed it is. But since this is the F&I subforum I am sharing my "ideas" of what "features" could be added or changed in the game to make it better.

I think that wardecs have not lived up to the design intent of the dev blog. Making dec-dodging an exploit again (like it was for the most of the history of Eve), and changing the fee structure as Tora suggested would improve things.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#88 - 2014-11-19 17:28:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Attacking other peoples assets however is not a small subset.

you can attack other people assets, anywhere. in any but HS without any wardec even, in HS you can suicide gank dodgers according to HS game rules.

baltec1 wrote:
As it stands war decs heavily favor the defender.

yeah

Black Pedro wrote:

I think that wardecs have not lived up to the design intent of the dev blog. Making dec-dodging an exploit again (like it was for the most of the history of Eve), and changing the fee structure as Tora suggested would improve things.

oh I can hardly tell whether they lived up to, devblog was specifically about HS towers and war shielding and shedding, which isnt working anymore for what I know, so how can you tell the change has failed?

Yes, individuals can still dodge but you wont be able to force them giving you easy killmails anyways, they'll more likely stop playing eve for the period of vulnerability or even complete quit the game, which cant be CCP's intention or whose ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2014-11-19 17:35:36 UTC
The problem i see is that the people who will dec-dodge have no interest in pvp and will use any valid means to avoid wardecs. This is akin to bumping where you gain advantage without going suspect. Valid mechanic that infuriates some and helps others. Before a corp wardecs they should determine whether it is worth it in their assessment of of the target corp. If they won't fight thendon't waste your time unless you have some reason to disrupt them by forcing them into an npc corp.

What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#90 - 2014-11-19 17:53:20 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose...


Those are active evasion methods, they don't just involve pressing a few buttons and freely bypassing the surrender mechanic.

Surely the difference is obvious.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2014-11-19 17:55:41 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
It's only a rough idea, however I did suggest that the defenders should be able to set up their own device to slowly narrow down the attackers POS location.

Souldn't need to. And you shouldn't need any new structures. Set pricing based on what type of corp is attacking and defending (ie. do they have assets in space to be attacked and where--high or low/null--are they?), give public information as to what constellation a corp has a presence in, and then change the charter fuel types to a much more expensive, non-consumable item that also prevents unanchoring POSes the moment a wardec is announced. Done right, decs against null corporations aren't affected at all, decs against high-sec corps without deployed assets are expensive, and corporations trying to dec other high-sec entities without putting something at risk in high-sec also have to pay a premium. (Even more so if they're also trying to target an asset-less high-sec corp.) But at the same time, everything that war decs are used for now can still happen, and the only new hoops you jump through are the ones you choose to lower your bill.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2014-11-19 18:04:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose...


Those are active evasion methods, they don't just involve pressing a few buttons and freely bypassing the surrender mechanic.

Surely the difference is obvious.


But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers. Actually the active method is better as the decced corp carries on elsewhere instead. The corp that simply drop to an npc corp suffer higher taxes too. Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#93 - 2014-11-19 18:09:52 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers.


The result is not the same.

One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place.

One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest.

It's fairly obvious which one is better for the health of the game.


Quote:
Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec).


Among other things, yes.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2014-11-19 18:15:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers.


The result is not the same.

One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place.

One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest.

It's fairly obvious which one is better for the health of the game.


Quote:
Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec).


Among other things, yes.


Ahh i wasn't clear. I meant the net result is the same to the deccing corp-wasted time and isk which mean they should have picked their target better...the escaping corp don't really care how as long as they aren't too interrupted.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#95 - 2014-11-19 18:16:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The result is not the same.

One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place.

One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest.


why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids?
You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#96 - 2014-11-19 18:19:27 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Ahh i wasn't clear. I meant the net result is the same to the deccing corp-wasted time and isk which mean they should have picked their target better...the escaping corp don't really care how as long as they aren't too interrupted.


Yes, and that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about fixing a broken mechanic. One that is encouraging stagnation, discouraging active gameplay, and in general hurting the game.

To me, as an aggressor in the dec, there is a genuine difference between legitimately avoided and being dec dodged. Yes, the mathematical result is the same, but the means by which it is achieved is important.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#97 - 2014-11-19 18:22:01 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The result is not the same.

One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place.

One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest.


why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids?
You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things.


The economy runs on loss, bro. Causing damage and inflicting loss is one of the single most necessary functions of the game.

So yes, inflicting loss, by whatever means, is a higher purpose than just contributing to inflation. One is actually playing the game, one is watching the green number get bigger. And I for one don't think that EVE is deserving of being devolved into a Facebook game. Hell, even a Facebook game has more meaningful and engaging gameplay than freaking mining.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2014-11-19 18:29:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The result is not the same.

One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place.

One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest.


why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids?
You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things.


The economy runs on loss, bro. Causing damage and inflicting loss is one of the single most necessary functions of the game.

So yes, inflicting loss, by whatever means, is a higher purpose than just contributing to inflation. One is actually playing the game, one is watching the green number get bigger. And I for one don't think that EVE is deserving of being devolved into a Facebook game. Hell, even a Facebook game has more meaningful and engaging gameplay than freaking mining.


That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective. Miners must enjoy what thry do otherwise they simply wouldn't do it...you enjoy blowing things up and that's fine but until ccp outrights states dec-dodging isn't valid then it remains so. Personally my view is that if a player wants to interdict a mining group and knows a wardec is pointless then they should gank them instead. If they are active miners thrn ganking won't work, if they are afk then ganking will be simple and also painful.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#99 - 2014-11-19 18:33:25 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective.


It is not subjective to say that mining is not engaging gameplay.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2014-11-19 18:42:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective.


It is not subjective to say that mining is not engaging gameplay.


That depends entirely upon whether the miners feel engaged whilst mining and i'm pretty sure that any organized mining group does so as they chat and interact with fleetmates. Hence it is entirely subjective. It also depends upon where you mine as not being engaged whilst mining in losec/null/WH is pretty stupid...