These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#201 - 2015-11-04 18:08:55 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I bring it up now because all of your suggestions totally lack perspective.

For example you suggested completely removing the ally mechanic, which is completely absurd. Nobody who is involved in wars either as the aggressor or the defender would actually want that.

It's a convenient mechanic that's frequently used in highsec warfare. People like it. The only problem anyone has with it is that it's limited because of its totally one-sided and should probably be balanced.

Only with no perspective at all would think removing it would somehow benefit the war mechanics.

Every one of your suggestions has the same apparent lack of any kind of practical experience plastered all over it. At least the carebears motivated by a desire for wars to be impossible propose ideas that actually have some basis in their personal experience of the game. Yours is just a bunch of dumb crap that wouldn't benefit anyone, let alone the game as a whole.


Valid point. However, Just because this toon isn't in a corp doesn't mean I don't have other toons in a corp/s.

Having said that, you're taking my proposal for the removal of the ally system out of context.

That aspect only works if taken WITH the rest of my proposal.

I'll quote the idea, so you can read it in context, as you may have missed it. (it's several pages back now, as cat rant has apparently pushed it back.)

Quote:

  • Make the structure, and make the price reasonable. as a benefit for the wardeccer, the structure is re-usable if it isn't destroyed. One structure per war.

  • No one is allowed to attack the structure that isn't a active member of the defending corp and is a concordable offense.

  • The deccer pays a weekly fee to concord in order for the structure to be anchored. The more members you outnumber the defender by, the higher the weekly rental fee is. This forces both sides to monitor their memberships and clean out their inactive members as the deccer doesn't want to pay more, and the defender doesn't want the deccer to have to pay less.
    • This keeps large deccer entities from outnumbering their targets, and keeps targets from representing false number with inactive characters.
    The weekly increase would need to be fairly substantial or else the deccer would just take the extra small isk hit in order to overpower the defender.

  • If the war is made mutual, the structure is a non-factor and can be taken down. Neither side has to pay a fee at this point.
    • The only way to end a mutual war is through mutual agreement, surrender, or one of the two entities disbanding. This would also be shown in the war report.

  • If an entity disbands during a war, the other entity is given their ticker as a trophy, and the war report would have a trophy case.
    • Those corp/alliance names and tickers would not be usable again.

  • Since the war mechanic would support more balanced numbers, the defender would no longer be able to recruit an ally, HOWEVER, as a counter to this, wars would need to have a limit of 4-6 weeks before CONCORD declares a cease fire and neither entity would be able to dec the other for approx 2-4 weeks, unless the war was made mutual.

  • ANY type of support to either entity while engaging each other, from a non-war entity is a concordable offense. This means no neut logi, no neut boosts, and not even fleet members that aren't part of the war can engage while the two entities are aggressing each other.

  • There is no re-enforcement timer on the structure. It has no defenses of its own and cannot be repped by the aggressor, unless it's through station services. This is to keep the aggressor from being able to play bait games and then just repping it back to full HP. This also means that the commitment of the defender has an instant payoff, as opposed to having wait for a period in order to finish the job

  • If there is to be a vulnerability window set for the structure, this window will be determined by which game times best match up based on what the two entities have set at their timezone/play time. This is the same mechanic you would use to find a corp that suits your play times. The vulnerability windows are dictated by where their play times overlap.


This provides many positives to both sides that are not supported by the current system

No outside influence, the defender as a chance at an out, the deccer doesn't have to worry about allies anymore, the defender can effectively force the attacker out by engaging the structure if they wish to fight, the deccer gets to wave a carrot in the face of the defender that would hopefully have them undock and become active in the war, wars become more balanced in member count as the aggressor doesn't want to have to pay a substantial amount more to overpower and doesn't want to lose their structure by being under powered.

Yes, this likely means that small entities would no longer be able to wardec large alliances, but seeing as how they only cherry pick kills in tradehubs, I see no issue with that.

As a last note to how the mechanics work, SOV holding entities should be allowed to wardec other SOV holding entities without a structure and at a base costs since numbers don't matter if you're a SOV holder.


Taken in context, you can see that it provides both positive and negative aspects for both entities.
Attacker has to maintain a structure, and defender loses the ally mechanic.
HOWEVER, to counter-act this, I have included measures the persuade the deccer to pick a target of close to equal member count by substantial price increase for outnumbering them, and the structure itself persuades them from taking a 5 man corp and deccing a 2k alliance, as they could just roll up the structure.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#202 - 2015-11-04 18:24:16 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
derrjuden wrote:
because i'm in an industrial/ highsec pve corporation that travels frequently in and out of trade-hubs and due to this am prone to the occasional troll war declaration, and feel i would be less victimized if trolls couldn't just throw out unlimited war dec's to sate their crazy obsession with taking away from another players game experience? maybe?

Corps in EVE serve as a PvP platform. They are the gateway through which players can partake in wars, establish at uctures in space that provide rewards and objectives to defend. They allow players to stake their claim on territory and provide advantages such as controlled tax.

By being a part of a corp, you have signalled to all the other players in the game that you are pursuing greater rewards and are willing to fight for them.

If you are not willing to fight, NPC corps exist as a safer alternative but without said rewards. As you said you are a hauler/industrial character, there are few benefits for you but plenty of potential PvP drawbacks. The solution to your problem is to join an NPC corp, not beg CCP to ruin everyone else's game play.


Your comment is correct, however, it insinuates that both entities have a dog in the fight, which is typically not the case.

In many cases, the defender does not have a structure, and neither does the attacker.
That said, the defender has a reason to fight, being to protect and/or return to their way of life.
HOWEVER, the attacker only wants to kill them and does not have any reason to actually combat their target, so they will always try to find undefended kills.
If the defender does defend and even goes as far as push back on the attacker, it is met with no reaction from the attacker apart from docking up.
The defender will continue to be at risk, as the attacker likely has eyes on them, and is waiting to catch someone with their pants down, so the defender must constantly take actions the hinder their game play. (IE attain less isk)


This is what is referred to as a Proxy War and it counter intuitive to the claims that wardecs drive conflict.


Regardless of what the defender does, they will always lose because they have reduced involvement in their daily activities and are rarely met with combat, even when they wish to actually engage their attacker; or end up getting so overpowered that it wasn't worth the fight. This leads to a mentality of "why fight" as no action they perform typically has a positive outcome.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2015-11-04 19:34:39 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
derrjuden wrote:
because i'm in an industrial/ highsec pve corporation that travels frequently in and out of trade-hubs and due to this am prone to the occasional troll war declaration, and feel i would be less victimized if trolls couldn't just throw out unlimited war dec's to sate their crazy obsession with taking away from another players game experience? maybe?

Corps in EVE serve as a PvP platform. They are the gateway through which players can partake in wars, establish at uctures in space that provide rewards and objectives to defend. They allow players to stake their claim on territory and provide advantages such as controlled tax.

By being a part of a corp, you have signalled to all the other players in the game that you are pursuing greater rewards and are willing to fight for them.

If you are not willing to fight, NPC corps exist as a safer alternative but without said rewards. As you said you are a hauler/industrial character, there are few benefits for you but plenty of potential PvP drawbacks. The solution to your problem is to join an NPC corp, not beg CCP to ruin everyone else's game play.


Your comment is correct, however, it insinuates that both entities have a dog in the fight, which is typically not the case.

The conclusion to the comment was precisely that when a defender doesn't have a dog in the race, he shouldn't be in a corp in the first place.

Inexperienced players make this mistake. It's to be expected. However, the correct reaction when you find yourself paying for this mistake is "being in a corp is harder than I first expected, I need to reconsider whether or not it's a good idea to be in one." not "nerf ALL the things!"

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#204 - 2015-11-04 19:59:59 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Thank you for for stating the core of the problem so clearly.
What I would like to see is about a 2 months of the real PvP players in low and nul war deccing and killing the high sec war dec corps simply to see how they respond to an overwhelming force they have virtually no chance of defeating.

Just what the devils do when they are less than 2 to 1: stay docked cursing the carebears who brought this on them (everything is carebears fault, remember), crying about CCP favoritism (going back to harvesting tears from newbies doing the same the moment it ends), and ranting how war dec is biased for the defender who can just stay docked (not even batting an eye towards dreadnought-sized double standard).

Mike Azariah wrote:
I am the reputed hisec Carebear on the CSM and even I do not think that removal of wardecs is a good idea. Tying them to structures, yes. Complete removal? No.

Tying them to structures would be a limiter in and of itself as all decced corps could shoot any of the structures if they so chose to. Picking fights with a lot of people SHOULD mean that you are forming an army against yourself, not just a target rich environment. Making the wardeccer have some skin in the game and something the decced corp can attack back would (hopefully) be a more resonabel limiter.


You are the reputed spineless teethless worn mouthpiece of a CSM who's a secret gewn pet and only allowed to stay in CSM due to being virtually useless.
You are a major reason of hisec and sub base being reduced to its sorry state by lack of any measurable action, a CSM's own vegetable in a pot.
Is there anything but posting and approving whatever your gewn masters tell you that you did?

Go on and state the obvious. Not a single bear in this thread thinks removing wardec is a good idea, me included.

The core change request has been there since the first griefer found the war dec button: Make wardec about fights, not about grinding, camping, griefing, griefing, and griefing.

RvB (RIP, gg Mittens) managed to make it right with just 12 rules. I'm not saying the generic wardec should adopt any of those, or their model itself, but it shows that it is indeed possible to make such model.

Why won't you do something useful for once in the decade, Mike?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#205 - 2015-11-04 20:04:00 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
"One more nerf and it will be fine!"

The new eve hisec, where the only way for content-creators to win is not to play.

F

Would you like to know more?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2015-11-04 20:05:22 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Your comment is correct, however, it insinuates that both entities have a dog in the fight, which is typically not the case.

The conclusion to the comment was precisely that when a defender doesn't have a dog in the race, he shouldn't be in a corp in the first place.

Inexperienced players make this mistake. It's to be expected. However, the correct reaction when you find yourself paying for this mistake is "being in a corp is harder than I first expected, I need to reconsider whether or not it's a good idea to be in one." not "nerf ALL the things!"[/quote]

That is a bad outlook and CCP would not support it.
They want players to join corps and be more socially active, as it increases retention, even if that means you get sub par corps.
Given enough time, they could potentially become a strong entity. Everyone has to start somewhere.

As far as the comment on no dog in the fight, I stated that the defender does, but the attacker does not.
The defender wants to protect their way of life, the attacker wants only to kill them.

This leads to the defender wanting to protect what they have, but having no viable means to, as the attacker can easily dictate who, where, when, what, and how, as he does not need to be present for any counter aggression from the defender.

It's basically like saying the attacker has diplomatic immunity.
They can go out and do what they want, but defense forces cannot do anything back.

If the structure idea were to be implemented, it would truly weed the weak corps out, while giving corps willing to defend their assets an opportunity to counteract the war.
What I mean is, there are entities that will never fight back, even if provided with a means to end the war. These are the TRUE carebears and they will never fight, thus they wouldn't attempt to engage the structure.

On the other hand, there are entities (most of the ones I've been in of late) that would be willing to fight, if there was any merit to fighting. As I mentioned, these groups are hindered by the current wardec mechanics.
1) Because there is nothing they can do to end the war. Even if they destroy 10 billion isk worth of attacker assets, it's still left up to the attacker on whether the war continues.

And 2) Because the example I just gave, rarely ever happens. The attacker does not have to fight if the situation does not heavily favor them. They can simply dock up and deny the defender of any damage.

This leads to the best defense being an absence of activity.
As I have stated several times throughout this and the other thread, any mechanic to which lack of activity is the best strategy for EITHER side, is a flawed mechanic.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#207 - 2015-11-04 20:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Orca Platypus
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Corps in EVE serve as a PvP platform.

Already bullcrap.
Corps are social platforms. PvP platform is a fleet.

Hiasa Kite wrote:
They are the gateway through which players can partake in wars, establish at uctures in space that provide rewards and objectives to defend. They allow players to stake their claim on territory and provide advantages such as controlled tax.

So all the corps without a shred of intention to claim anything should just cease to exist for the alleged crime of not lining up with your tunnel vision up someone's rear?
The gateway to partaking in wars is, once again, a fleet. You can fight without a corp all right, without a fleet, however, it's not gonna end well.

Hiasa Kite wrote:
By being a part of a corp, you have signalled to all the other players in the game that you are pursuing greater rewards and are willing to fight for them.

Bringing your fleet out to low/null is signalling for every other player in the game, yes.
In hisec, there's nothing to pursue. Thank Mike "vegetable" Azariah for that.

Hiasa Kite wrote:
If you are not willing to fight, NPC corps exist as a safer alternative but without said rewards. As you said you are a hauler/industrial character, there are few benefits for you but plenty of potential PvP drawbacks. The solution to your problem is to join an NPC corp, not beg CCP to ruin everyone else's game play.

If you are not willing to fight, hisec exists as a safer alternative but without said rewards.
Solution to the problem is to stop looking up someone's rear with a telescope and posting it on the forums.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2015-11-04 20:15:08 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am the reputed hisec Carebear on the CSM and even I do not think that removal of wardecs is a good idea. Tying them to structures, yes. Complete removal? No.

Tying them to structures would be a limiter in and of itself as all decced corps could shoot any of the structures if they so chose to. Picking fights with a lot of people SHOULD mean that you are forming an army against yourself, not just a target rich environment. Making the wardeccer have some skin in the game and something the decced corp can attack back would (hopefully) be a more resonabel limiter.


You are the reputed spineless teethless worn mouthpiece of a CSM who's a secret gewn pet and only allowed to stay in CSM due to being virtually useless.
You are a major reason of hisec and sub base being reduced to its sorry state by lack of any measurable action, a CSM's own vegetable in a pot.
Is there anything but posting and approving whatever your gewn masters tell you that you did?

Go on and state the obvious. Not a single bear in this thread thinks removing wardec is a good idea, me included.

The core change request has been there since the first griefer found the war dec button: Make wardec about fights, not about grinding, camping, griefing, griefing, and griefing.

RvB (RIP, gg Mittens) managed to make it right with just 12 rules. I'm not saying the generic wardec should adopt any of those, or their model itself, but it shows that it is indeed possible to make such model.

Why won't you do something useful for once in the decade, Mike?


UHHHHHH... Wasn't he on our side?
Isn't he stating that he is all for changing wardec mechanics?

Or is it that you don't want wardecs in HS at all?

If you don't want wardecs, then you and I are on a completely different page.

I think wardecs should stay in the game, I just believe they need to be changed in a way that gives the defender a dog in the fight.
I too agree that the complete removal of wars would make Eve a theme park style game. However, making wars more of a conflict is what I'm gunning for.
Right now, they're a case of "be my clay pigeon" and/or "who can stay docked up the longest".
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2015-11-04 20:15:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Orca Platypus
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
"One more nerf and it will be fine!"

The new eve hisec, where the only way for content-creators to win is not to play.

F



Current wardec is like old awox, zero content, and you can't even win or lose at it, unless you consider successfully griefing someone for a week of playtime a "win" (lmao).
Come out to lowsec to the rest of us and play where the content currently is.
Last time you chickened out by complaining surprise triage drops are destroying your content, what's your excuse now?

ED: Oh I just noticed you joined a superdropperbears who are too kewl to fight their own fights, live to spoil the fights of the others, and always bail out if they get landed on three times. Guess the devils "2 to 1 or blueball" was too scary for you and now you only go "2 dreads to rifter or ignore".
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2015-11-04 20:19:50 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
UHHHHHH... Wasn't he on our side?

No gewn pet is ever gonna be on our side.

Joe Risalo wrote:
Isn't he stating that he is all for changing wardec mechanics?

All he can do is state, and in a form where he can deny stating anything later.

Joe Risalo wrote:
Or is it that you don't want wardecs in HS at all?
If you don't want wardecs, then you and I are on a completely different page.

You citated my post without reading, or should I point out "nobody wants to remove wardecs, me included" part for you again?

Joe Risalo wrote:
I think wardecs should stay in the game, I just believe they need to be changed in a way that gives the defender a dog in the fight.
I too agree that the complete removal of wars would make Eve a theme park style game. However, making wars more of a conflict is what I'm gunning for.
Right now, they're a case of "be my clay pigeon" and/or "who can stay docked up the longest".

That. Is. Literally. What. I. Said. In. The. Post. You. Quoted.
Jesus man, read up!
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#211 - 2015-11-04 20:32:38 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:

Jesus man, read up!


Oh I read it, I was just wondering why you bashed him for speaking, despite him favoring our argument.

He cannot deny him comment later down the road.

Even if he deletes the comment, you quoted him.
That quote will not change, unless changed by an ISD or CCP. If that were to happen, then everyone would would boycott CCP games in all forms, as it would go against everything they claim to be.

However, there's a good chance your comment will likely be deleted by ISD, not to silence you, but because you waisted that comment to bash another player instead of having a civil discussion, in which you inform him that you have no faith in him as a CSM.

Hopefully, ISD will take what I'm stating into consideration, and leave what little part of your comment wasn't derogatory, as well as the quote.

But just in case, I'll quote him on this comment, which has no merit to be deleted.
Mike Azariah wrote:

I am the reputed hisec Carebear on the CSM and even I do not think that removal of wardecs is a good idea. Tying them to structures, yes. Complete removal? No.

Tying them to structures would be a limiter in and of itself as all decced corps could shoot any of the structures if they so chose to. Picking fights with a lot of people SHOULD mean that you are forming an army against yourself, not just a target rich environment. Making the wardeccer have some skin in the game and something the decced corp can attack back would (hopefully) be a more resonabel limiter.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#212 - 2015-11-04 20:50:44 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:

Current wardec is like old awox, zero content, and you can't even win or lose at it, unless you consider successfully griefing someone for a week of playtime a "win" (lmao).
Come out to lowsec to the rest of us and play where the content currently is.
Last time you chickened out by complaining surprise triage drops are destroying your content, what's your excuse now?

ED: Oh I just noticed you joined a superdropperbears who are too kewl to fight their own fights, live to spoil the fights of the others, and always bail out if they get landed on three times. Guess the devils "2 to 1 or blueball" was too scary for you and now you only go "2 dreads to rifter or ignore".

I was going to reply meaningfully but then thought "nobody forum alt run by a nobody", and so just decided to call you a fuccboi instead.

F

Would you like to know more?
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#213 - 2015-11-04 21:01:23 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Oh I read it, I was just wondering why you bashed him for speaking, despite him favoring our argument.

He cannot deny him comment later down the road.

Even if he deletes the comment, you quoted him.
That quote will not change, unless changed by an ISD or CCP. If that were to happen, then everyone would would boycott CCP games in all forms, as it would go against everything they claim to be.

However, there's a good chance your comment will likely be deleted by ISD, not to silence you, but because you waisted that comment to bash another player instead of having a civil discussion, in which you inform him that you have no faith in him as a CSM.

Knowing Mike, he can probably deny his birth certificate later down the road.
On this post, he'll just say "I were theorizing on what would be a good limiter and it didn't mean anything you imply".
Or something even more bold which I can't think up, due to not being a denial specialist of Mike's caliber.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
"I yield"

Thank from successfully removing yourself from an intelligent discussion you clearly do not belong to.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#214 - 2015-11-04 21:04:56 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
"i'm a nobody forum alt fuccboi"

Go skill yourself.

F

Would you like to know more?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2015-11-04 21:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Joe Risalo wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Quote:
Your comment is correct, however, it insinuates that both entities have a dog in the fight, which is typically not the case.

The conclusion to the comment was precisely that when a defender doesn't have a dog in the race, he shouldn't be in a corp in the first place.

Inexperienced players make this mistake. It's to be expected. However, the correct reaction when you find yourself paying for this mistake is "being in a corp is harder than I first expected, I need to reconsider whether or not it's a good idea to be in one." not "nerf ALL the things!"


That is a bad outlook and CCP would not support it.

It's the truth and it's precisely how CCP supports it. EVE is about risk vs reward. Being in a corp has its rewards and as such, suffers from additional risk. If you're not in a position to reap the rewards of being in a corp, it stands to reason you're better off not being in one.

Quote:
They want players to join corps and be more socially active, as it increases retention, even if that means you get sub par corps.

This is why I support the idea of "social corps": Mechanically identical to NPC corps, but run by players. People that just want to belong to a group, but don't want to fight get everything they want while people that want the advantages of being in a player-run corp can deal with the wardecs.

Hell, another reason to like the idea as any pretence for the existence of the awox toggle switch is gone and the feature can be removed.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#216 - 2015-11-04 21:14:49 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
"One more nerf and it will be fine!"


The salt is strong with this one.
Metal Mechanic
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2015-11-04 21:22:02 UTC
Make no mistake, If there we no HS war decks, there would be more ppl playing eve. CCP knows this. I don't have any answers, but if your into ganking new or uneducated players, I would be spending my time making CCP aware of your simple solution that allows you to continue to play eve the way you want to play it, with out costing CCP subscribers.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2015-11-04 21:28:47 UTC
Metal Mechanic wrote:
Make no mistake, If there we no HS war decks, there would be more ppl playing eve.

EVE would pretty much die.

You need look no further than the economic impact of an excessively safe HiSec.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Black Pedro
Mine.
#219 - 2015-11-04 21:31:19 UTC
Metal Mechanic wrote:
Make no mistake, If there we no HS war decks, there would be more ppl playing eve. CCP knows this. I don't have any answers, but if your into ganking new or uneducated players, I would be spending my time making CCP aware of your simple solution that allows you to continue to play eve the way you want to play it, with out costing CCP subscribers.

Again, isn't this the exact opposite of what CCP Rise told us at Fanfest?

Where do you people get this stuff?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#220 - 2015-11-04 21:35:39 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

This is why I support the idea of "social corps": Mechanically identical to NPC corps, but run by players. People that just want to belong to a group, but don't want to fight get everything they want while people that want the advantages of being in a player-run corp can deal with the wardecs.

Hell, another reason to like the idea as any pretence for the existence of the awox toggle switch is gone and the feature can be removed.


I personally am not in favor of social corps.
This can be done through a private chat channel.

I would rather change the wardec mechanic in hopes to convince players to become more involved in pvp.