Player Features and Ideas Discussion

An interesting read. Page 6 has been the most level so far. I am still not sure about announcing the WarDec Project on the eve-o forums, but the pace and momentum of player suggestions towards the current WarDec system is growing.

The link is there now, you should check it out if you are interested in WarDec issues.

With deployable structures idea, how does someone WarDec a null-bloc like the Goons, for example? They would become immune to Wars in high sec.

I'm personally in favor of having an in space component that needs to be defended by the agressor to keep the war going. It doesn't have to be easy to knock over, it just has to be available to knock over.

Here's my thinking. It will separate the chaff from the wheat. (my opinion) A lot of the current merc and wardec corps are just around to farm players. (my opinion) I don't feel the current seal clubbing play is good for the game overall - I know the arguments as to "It keeps players subscribed" and all that other stuff. I have no desire to argue all that gabage. It's my opinion that the seal clubbing component of the current war dec system is bad for the game. (feel free to have a differing opinion, I'm cool with that, and I'm not going to change my mind, so please please don't throw the standard arguments to derail the point)....
Where was I? Oh yes, the seal clubbing player farmers.... I (my opinion again) think a LOT of the current docking ring heros will fold within a week or 2 if they have to get out in space and defend something. As soon as you add a risk component to the agressor side of the equation a lot of them will fold up and move on.

So I'll qualify some terms:
Docking ring hero - a risk averse ninny that uses HS and war dec mechanics to farm players not interested in combat.
Mercs - guys that enjoy HS pvp. They will get out there and take the fights offered and see where the chips may fall at the end.

A little history. My corp (run by Hans Gates at the time - come back bro) was a reasonably successful merc corp back in 09. With success our numbers grew and so did the percentage of players lounging in corp just waiting for kills to be handed to them. We got in a few actual fights and a lot of our 'mercs' didn't log in or show up where potential loss was involved. Our leadership at the time ended up folding the corp and the core of the corp reformed under another banner in WH space. I loved HS warring / mercing for several years. I think it could return to a great way to play the game. Rigtht now the mechanics just plain suck. They need changed.

Having an agressor asset in space that could end the conflict if removed by the defender does several things.
1. It creates an avenue for content. Only players can create content so obviously some defenders will decline, BUT if folks want to fight, there is a place where space violence can be initiated where ships don't have the option to dock up and cheese out.
2. It will remove the docking ring heros from the arena. (my opinion) There are a good number of 'HS PVP' guys that wouldn't be able to come to terms with losses as a part of doing business. These lesser ninnies would walk away quickly.
3. Giving the defenders the ability to fight out in space and actually bring down ships will go a long way toward brining more newbros into the fold. (defenders winning 3 out of 50 is three times as good as defenders winning 1 out of 50 - this is NOT hard to understand) (If a HS merc group can't come to terms w/ 3 out of 50 - GTFO)
4. It gives an avenue for the war dec'd masses to work together and overcome a large HS PVP entity. That would be the first M in mmo.

Again, the in space asset doesn't have to be easy to remove, it just has to be removable. Think of it as a content beacon calling out to all involved parties. I would be in favor of modelling the in space thingerdoodle after current POS mechanics. You can hit it and put it in RFO. The owners get a timer that counts down when the final destruction will occur. A place to meet in space and commit to combat. What could be better?

No.

It will functionally delete small corps and one man shows and force conglomeration into bigger and bigger groups. Then in six months we'll hear how wars need to be nerfed again because it's unfair that the dumbass carebears don't stand a chance against the groups you forced to conglomerate together. (which is exactly what happened in the past with the cost hike and the ally mechanic, and now they're back to crying for more nerfs)

The idea is a very literal non starter.




I'll think of it like what it is.

Putting on leg weights to hobble one side, just for having the temerity to actually be the aggressor.

How about the mechanic actually be fair, be equitable to both sides, like it more or less is right now? Why are you people so married to handicapping the side that wants to initiate conflict in the first place?




An actually balanced mechanic that doesn't arbitrarily handcuff one side?

Yeah, that. Something with game balance in mind, instead of, as you openly admit you're trying to do, punishing gameplay you don't like.

I love (well loved) HS warring. It was great fun. I don't want to punish it - I want to make it meaningful. I also want to get it off of the stations. I can pretty much sit in a rattler w/ links and crystals and ride out any agression timers and dock if I need to. I can sit in a brick tanked T3 and w/ 1 or 2 logi ride out any agression timers. I'm trying to change game play that isn't fun or interesting. I'm trying to put something of value in harms way so there is meaningful combat.

I want to move the combat off the gates and stations. This is the only way I see to do it.

I don't really care about 1 man war dec corps (I'll just play the mmo card and leave it at that). Small corps do fine if they are pvp capable. Sure they'll lose from time to time, but unlike a lot of the HS elite pvp forum guards - I know that losing a few ships as a pvp gal is part of the playstyle.

If you feel hobbled because you own a thing in space that you can fight at and around - I'm not sure how to help you. For guys that log in to pvp (actually fight with and agains folks in pvp capable ships) this is all good. For folks that want to club seals and high five over it w/ no losses - It would be problematic.

A personal note - I would love to get my corp back into some limited HS warring and possibly a few contracts, but the current mechanics are just not worth it. The system is pretty broken right now. If there was an in space component to placing a war dec - I'd warp to it immediately, r-click it and rename it "COME AT ME BRO" every time I dropped a war dec on someone. I'd publish directions to it. I'd put a big blinky light on the thing that could be seen 4 systems out if that were an option.

That's where I'm coming from. Actual in space fighting where there is no dock/jump option, only the option to commit to the fight.

The meaning of wars is directly tied to the meaning in highsec. Particularly corps.

There isn't any.

You cannot feasibly inject meaning into something in which the underlying structure lacks meaning. All you'll do is screw up the mechanic even more.

The rest, as you mentioned, is an attempt to punish gameplay that you don't like. And I reject that at the conceptual level.




For you.

And what you're doing, is suggesting that other people's gameplay should change in a hugely negative way because you don't like it.

With equal validity as yours (which would be zero), I could suggest that no person be able to run missions in highsec without a citadel in the constellation. Sure, this cripples NPC corp players completely, handicaps smaller groups and forbids new players from striking out on their own, but, you know... MMO.

I'd imagine that people would be popping up out of the freaking ground to decry such a heavy handed, unbalanced nerf.




Even if such a thing were worth crippling smaller groups, which it's not, it's a hateful, hamfisted way to go about game design.




Don't be dishonest. You even admit that it's intended to hurt gameplay you don't like. I, for one, would find this problematic because I am not a particularly regular player. Structure defense is a functional impossibility for me with my work schedule.

You would render me bereft of gameplay, because you feel it necessary to shackle the very idea of aggression to a structure.

No. Conflict in highsec should become more accessible, not less accessible. Less barriers to entry, not more.

See, that is exactly what the structure mechanic provides..

LESS barriers for conflict, as it inspires conflict.

I say this because there's already a TON of barriers baked into the current mechanics.
No need for the deccer to undock to continue the war - barrier to conflict
No amount of effort on the defender will end the war - barrier to conflict
Neutral logi and boosts - barrier to conflict

All of these incentivize a LACK of conflict, therefore, are a barrier.


You're presenting the premise that the aggressor will be forced into constant defense of the structure.
I would argue that this is a mentality of risk aversion.
You would perma-defend the structure because you don't want to lose anything.

What you fail to realize, is that in having a structure which incentivizes the defender to undock and attack only provides you with more targets.
Is the problem that these targets would be undocking with the intent to fight?

Regardless of whether loss or fear of hostile forces is your aversion, this mentality should not be supported by the game mechanic, as it is intended to fuel conflict (as you have claimed), yet the mechanic as only succeeded in hindering conflict.

As Jason Quixos' link expresses, there are those defenders that are willing to fight. There are also those attackers whom are willing to meet a hostile fleet, but what it fails to establish is that these types of wars are often few and far between as BOTH entities would rather stay docked until they have a target of opportunity.


With something such as a structure, you will still have the opportunity to continue warring in the typical manner of picking targets of opportunity.
However, it will provide the defender with incentive to present themselves to you for destruction.
If you're not willing to meet that force, well, then you're playing Eve "wrong" based on earlier arguments of what playing "wrong" was. (though, I still say there is no write or wrong if not EULA specific. I'm merely point out that your argument is moot based on your own definition)


Now, I disagree with something Serendipity said.
I do not feel that the structure should have a re-enforcement timer.
I say this because it still gives one side of the fight too much power.
The aggressor would not have to monitor, not defend the structure until it goes re-enforced.
This means they'd know where you're going to be, and when you're going to be there, which gives them way to much power.

That leads to the discussion of, should the structure have vulnerability windows?
My opinion on this is.... NO...
Why? Well, the intent is to drive conflict.
With vulnerability windows, there's a lack of conflict at all, until the structure is vulnerable.
It also leads to the argument of what determines the vulnerability?
If the aggressor selects, that's unfair... If the defender selects, that's unfair... If it's random, someone will cry when it doesn't suit them.
An alternate suggestion would be that the timezone is determined by the time zones chosen by the two entities.
IE, if your play time is predominantly 8pm Eve time, and mine is 4 am Eve time, then the vulnerability time is somewhere in the middle. However, this still leads to a bit of unfairness. It's easier to stay on later than it is to leave work earlier.

My suggestion is that the structure is ALWAYS vulnerable. My reasoning behind this is so that entities will be encouraged to wardec targets to which they share the same play times. Also, the structure should not be repairable; The purpose behind this is to keep the aggressor from being able to troll the defender..Though, it would have a natural regen, thus suggesting to the defender to keep at it or lose all progress.
To add to this, player times would no longer be player controlled, but measured by Eve, thus dynamic. So, if you spend most of your time playing during US times it will show this. However, if you start adding several members outside of your timezone, your play times will dynamically evolve to show this. Perhaps a simple scale with peaks and valleys of active times.
Giving the attacker this information ensures they choose a target that matches their play times, thus being able to defend, while it also has the alternate effect of suggesting play time diversity for both the defender and aggressor in and out of wardecs, which is a good thing.

Now, on the document provided..
There was talk of the current wardec mechanics allowing people to drop corp and how this potentially shouldn't be allowed.
Well... Yes and no.
I don't feel an individual should be allowed to drop corp in order to avoid a dec, however, I feel that folding corp should still drop the dec, as it is a relative win. HOWEVER, I feel that the dec should follow the individuals for the remainder of the week, keeping them from immediately rolling a new corp.

Now, as far as the structure leading to the creation of large dec entities and hurting small entities.
I will agree that this is true.

HOWEVER, in my proposal I specifically stated the the cost of the war would be determined by the number of members in each entity.
If you outnumber your target, you pay for ecah member you outnumber by.
It needs to be something significant like 20mil per member you outnumber by.
The purpose behind this is to discourage imbalance, thus increasing potential for conflict.
Most small targets will not fight if they're outnumber 500 to 10, but might be willing to fight if it's 10 v 10.

This provides more opportunity to merc entities, as they'll be able to split into smaller factions and take on multiple smaller entities, and keep the wars separate from each other, thus having more control. Yet they would still be able to reform to fight larger entities.
Another thought on this is allowing individual corps in an alliance to declare individual wars (in which other alliance members are not allows to get involved) while the alliance can still retain wars to which all corps are allowed to be involved.
This would allow them to have several small wars, while still retaining large ones, but keeping them separate from each other.



Then there is the discussion on how many wardecs should an entity be allowed to have, and how many should an entity be allowed to receive.

The first one is simple. They should be allowed to have as many outgoing wardecs as they wish. However, if required to have a single structure they take the risk of pulling in more than they can defend against, while if they're required to have a structure for each dec, they take the risk of spreading themselves too thin... This is good in my opinion.
It introduces the concept of "don't bite off more than you can chew" which is so prevalent in other forms of pvp, including a typical roam.

Where this becomes difficult is on the defender's end... how many wardecs should they be allowed to receive?
Well, there's the argument that if we limit it, then it will be taken advantage of... To this I agree.
So, with it unlimited, what is to keep the deccers from defending each others structures?
This would give quite an unfair advantage to the deccer as they could split into multiple smaller entities to meet the size of the target, and still work together.
Well, there is the suggestion that the ally mechanic be brought into this new design in order to aid, but the problem here is that it will lead to escalation.. I add more people, you add more people, i add more people, etc. etc. etc.
This is counter-intuitive, as my intent is to keep the war between the two entities.

So the proposal I have on this is... well... weird, but honestly, it's the only solution to the problem.

The structure itself is placed into a dead space pocket to which only the two entities of that war are allowed to enter.
While the other entities will be allowed to gate camp or whatever else, the conflict over the structure would remain between the two specific parties.
This means we have the potential of removing the ally mechanic from the equation.
However, you can pay to have someone wardec any other threats in order to counteract their gatecamps and whatever else.
having them wardec the primary target for the defender would be counter-intuitive as they would not be allowed to warp to the structure, thus not of much help... But, they could clear the way.


I mean, there's obviously a lot of thought and effort that would need to be put into a new wardec mechanic of this nature, but the issue with a mechanic that is too simplistic is that it favors one entity over the other.



We all know there are problems with the current wardec mechanic, it's just a matter on whether the problem is yours or not.
That's why many aggressors are unwilling to admit there is a problem, as they take the risk of losing the advantage.

This is our experience in a nutshell. We have "won" wars and lost wars. It has no bearing on how long the war lasts or whether some other bunch will dec us the following week. Generally most people sit out the wars if they don't leave the corp altogether. The ones that don't get picked off like strays.

The suggestion that people be frozen into a corp under a wardec is absurd. People need more incentive to join the social aspect of the game not strong disincentives.

I really have tried to get through some of the suggestions and understand not just the mechanism but the expected outcome of the space deployed asset but I can't see how it would increase the amount of fighting in highsec. And if it doesn't do that then why have it?

Lets take a perfect example of the highsec wardeccers. That being, me.

Now, everyone knows that the goal of all Agents of the New Order is to bring all of highsec into compliance with the New Halaima Code of Conduct. You can have your own opinions about that goal but its the goal we've chosen to act upon. In my quest to achieving this I have resorted to a number of tactics. Bumping for a while, then a ganking alt, and eventually, wardeccing non compliant corps and alliances. Each of these tactics is suitable to different situations but all have the same end state in mind. The miner/corp/alliance purchases mining permits and pledges support to James 315 and the Code. Again, I know lots of people don't agree with what we are doing but this is my example about wardeccing.

If you've spent much time in the ice fields and asteroid belts lately you have seen that Procurers and Skiffs wildly outnumber the other options that miners have. The reason for this is CODE. of course but it places the individual Agent, like myself, in a situation where demands for Code compliance are ignored by people who feel quite safe from ganking and frankly (in the case of a Skiff with a microwarpdrive) even bumping. There are even players who come attempt to disrupt the ganks with various jamming craft.

Right now the tool I have to force these players to follow my directions is the wardec. That five Skiff and an Orca mining machine that is raping the ice fields suddenly has to deal with me. The guy who thought it was fun to come disrupt my ganker gets a nasty gram from corporate HQ because the whole corp has been wardecced and the industrialists are NOT happy. The tactics that the carebear miner has employed (tanked up Procurers and SKiffs) has been countered and now they have to do something about it. Now, I'd be fine with it if they just bought the permits and followed the Code but oh no... they have "principles" and "honor" (I know, I know. They are miners and don't really have these things but they think they do so go along with me here). So they resist. First with words, sometimes with war ships, usually by vanishing. The week goes by and WHAAAA?!?!?! the wardec didn't end?????

So off we go for a while. Some corps surrender and buy permits. Others lose their members to NPC corps and they disappear. Still other negotiate a reasonable solution (I AM famously reasonable) and we move on satisfied for now. And now we get to the important part of my argument. It is critical for me achieving my goal in the wardec in that the defender CEO believes that he cannot beat me and that aquiessence is the best solution for his organization. It may not be factually true that he cannot beat me (as my propensity to attack against all odds has resulted in some rather spectacular defeats) but once he realizes that losing ships does not discourage me (as my goals are not based on some artficial win/loss feature thrust into the game) the enemy CEO has to decide whether, in the end, he should cut his losses and surrender. Which they do in their own way choosing either Code complance or annialation.

Now the problem with the space deployed asset. In my war of destruction against the U.S.A.T.O alliance, the Marmite Collective who allied with my war target, would have destroyed my space ass(et) in one week and the war would have been over. Instead it lasted eight months, spanned across all of highsec and into wormhole space, resulted in the destruction of three POSes (yes, one player can destroy a POS), engaged over 1000 players at some point in the war... and resulted in the destruction of an entire alliance of bot aspirants who objected to being required to follow the Code. You can read all about it by going to our website, clicking on Forum and reading the thread stickied right there at the top "Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war".

Perhaps you think Eve would be better without single attacking wardeccers like me. The space deployable asset would put an end to what I do. All the miners have to do is hire a merc corp ally to come in and destroy what I can't defend by myself. The result will be less wardecs, less exploding spaceships and less meta-gaming wars. What you would have is discouraged aggressors, smug carebears and a rarely used version of the WoW arenas.

Stop ruining Eve.

If you read back on my proposal, you will note the other changes I suggested.
The defender will get a target in which they can destroy to end the war.
However, the defender would also lose the ally functionality.
To counteract this a bit more, it also introduces higher dec rates when you outnumber your intended target.

So, there would be actual purpose in fighting.


See, what you've expressed in your story is that the defender could not win.
You stated that you lost battles due to your own personal issues, but failed to express that it made no difference in the war effort.
The alt accounts of your members continued on earning isk at no risk to the war, thus supplying your war effort.

That story only goes to show that no matter how much resistance they put up, even with the ally mechanic, they cannot stop the war.

Even in your tactical blunders, they still had no means of ending the war apart from bending to your will.

This means that you are free to push your will on Every player in highsec and no amount of resistance will help them, as no amount of resistance can end the war regardless of your failures.

This is broken in every sense of the word.

Edit..
If I failed at protecting and/or taking your SOV, WH system, or lowsec system; it has a very possibility of me losing everything. My SOV, my alliance, my coalition, my corp, my production lines, my ratting, my mining, my control, and much more.
However, with the dec mechanics as is.. You can simply shrug off even the worst of losses and continue going on with your agenda un-impeded.
Hell, part of your strategy is relying on the fact that the defender cannot stop the war, thus they will eventually either surrender, fold, or quit Eve at some point.
It's sad that you can rely on the fact that the war does not stop until you stop it, as opposed to relying on tactical and physical advantage like the rest of Eve.