These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Waging War

Author
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#1 - 2015-12-22 12:02:12 UTC
Proposal: Wardec costs shall scale with the size of the aggressing corp and take no account of the defender's size.

We keep the same cost calculating method, but we plug in the aggressor's numbers instead.
The current mechanic encourages large alliances to attack smaller entities. This is the most cost effective way to get wartargets.
The current mechanic uses inhibitive weekly costs to protect large groups from many small groups.
My proposal should reverse these trends.

Let's encourage punching up.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2 - 2015-12-22 12:21:22 UTC
Any thoughts towards changing wars are irrelevant prior to the release of Citadels, which change the game considerably. Right now, wars are "meaningless" because highsec corps are meaningless. Structure ownership being changed to such a degree also fundamentally changes corporations and their inherent value.

Basically, any proposals should wait until after the release of Citadels, and having given the game some time to settle into a rhythm after said release.

Especially something as integral as cost mechanics.

"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.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#3 - 2015-12-22 13:49:44 UTC
So the docking ring heros weigh in once again w/ don't touch anything because (we all know the long list of stuff)

Citadels have space magic. There currently will be no loot dropped from them. There will be no HS reason to remove them from the game. In the absence of loot - any anger or ouchy feelings will not be sufficient to overcome the war assist mechanic - if you wage war on a citadel the owner can immediately bring in 100s of his closest friends and make reasonable efforts impossible.

If you fix the cost scale back to when mercing was contract based instead of the current farming based system, then the mega mercs pastures will dry up.


Until you limit assists to a reasonable number and put the cost of waging war back to a workable system the current 'merc' regime will argue feverishly to maintain the status quo. They are in the midst of the great player farming era and don't want to let go. KB stats will drop into the 95% efficiency range and careers will be ruined - that's RUINED.

Review the other recent war dec mechanics threads. You'll get the same answers the last guy did when he brought up his idea for fixing the current broken system. Fixing the cost structure has been brought up many many times.

You'll notice the only folks arguing for the current mechanics as ok are the folks in large player farming corps. They'll claim they are arguing for 'the little guy', but why is the little guy not arguing for himself?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2015-12-22 14:10:12 UTC
Kaarous is right about at least one thing. One of the reasons wardecs are trivial affairs is because corps are often trivial affairs.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#5 - 2015-12-22 14:39:20 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kaarous is right about at least one thing. One of the reasons wardecs are trivial affairs is because corps are often trivial affairs.

Agree with this to a point, but then every time you attempt to address this by proposing a structure based war dec system and / or adding "social" corps to the game Kaarous is always one of the strongest and loudest voices against both ideas. And Serendipity is correct he uses the same lame arguments in all of his "no changes to war dec" posts.

To the OP, as Serendipity points out war decs are broken in a way that simply turning the fee structure upside down cannot and will not fix. It is an interesting idea and it should be a part of the overhaul but taken by itself changing the fees will would have no affect. Wnat to know why? next time you log in look at the number of active wars and multiply that by 50 million and the ISK spent is staggering. If they are willing to pay that now they will be willing to pay that if your idea was implemented.

Serendipity I agree with you on this issue. Wars were a lot more fun for both sides back when I first started playing the game and the negative changes to war decs over the years have driven about 2 dozen war dec players I know out of the game. As you have pointed out in the past not only have wars changed but the removal of can flipping as a play style is another factor in driving players into either the mega war dec corps or into ganking. To me the best path CCP could take would be to start by rolling back the changes to the war dec mechanic to the 2010 - 2011 era and bring back can flipping as we used to know it then set about making the changes they should have made back then.

Kaarous - the Citadel structures as proposed will make no difference to war decs so stop trying to fool yourself and others into believing that. The current POS are not a factor in the overwhelming majoirty of the war decs currently filed. And as Seredipity points out since there will be no loot drops and the costs between POS and Citadel will be similar AND they will have space magic to instantly and safely transport you stuff to a safe location there will be even less reason to attack a citadels than there is to attack a POS.
Abramul
Canadian Forces Corp
United 4 Nations
#6 - 2015-12-22 16:38:38 UTC
It would be more interesting if the wardec cost was paid out as bounties on dec kills. If you pay 500m, and kill a jump freighter or a bunch of exhumers, you get your money back. If your opponent manages to kill you, they get paid from the pool instead.
Always Shi
t Posting
#7 - 2015-12-22 17:03:19 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Citadels have space magic. There currently will be no loot dropped from them.


Incorrect. Just because personal assets can't drop doesn't mean there's no loot whatsoever.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#8 - 2015-12-22 17:09:42 UTC
Abramul wrote:
It would be more interesting if the wardec cost was paid out as bounties on dec kills. If you pay 500m, and kill a jump freighter or a bunch of exhumers, you get your money back. If your opponent manages to kill you, they get paid from the pool instead.



I like the concept, but it takes the dec fee out of the isk sink arena. When we merced we charged per hull killed and paid out the same to the guys. 1 mil for a hauler, 3 mil for a cruiser, 10 mil for t2 cruiser and so on. Noir used to charge by what their kb valued the kill at and ran up some fairly rediculous tabs on their clients. If the mechanics ever got away from player farming and back to where contracts would actually work the per hull payout plan may once again become useful.

That just gave me a quirky idea though. Have the agressor corp put up an escrow. Every time the defender gets a kill on the agressors, they get the eve kill value out of the escrow account. If they empty the account - the war is over. If the agressor is losing and wants to bail - they just don't put any more isk in escrow. If the agressor is losing, but wants to keep going - the just keep the escrow account from going empty. At the end of the war, whatever is left in the escrow account goes back to the agressor.

(I can't wait to hear the docking ring heros cry over that idea)
Helios Panala
#9 - 2015-12-22 19:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Citadels have space magic. There currently will be no loot dropped from them.


All Citadel hangars are fitted with warp drives, jump drives and cloaks which they can use to escape should it become clear the structure is lost, it's all part of a very clever and totally foolproof system that never fails (or, you know, something like that.)

100% magic free.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#10 - 2015-12-22 20:41:12 UTC
While I agree that the cost scaling mechanic is dumb I think your idea is bad.

Mostly because it's exploitable and avoidable. You could simply have everyone leave corp before you declare a batch of wars to get them to minimum cost then rejoin afterwards.

I personally think cost scaling should be removed entirely. The notion that the number of players has any relationship with the capability of that group to fight a war either offensively or defensively is just totally wrong. Corp/alliance size shouldn't be a factor that the game considers at all, every group in the game, regardless of size should be treated equally.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#11 - 2015-12-22 20:52:12 UTC
^^ nails it.
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kaarous is right about at least one thing. One of the reasons wardecs are trivial affairs is because corps are often trivial affairs.

Also true.
I agree they need work but I'm mighty curious as to how the new structures effect wars.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2015-12-22 21:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
I agree with vimsy as well.

You make Dec costs about members and war Dec corps will have an incentive to trim their members at every opportunity and place sp restrictions on New membership rather than having total freedom to manage their Corp by their own standards.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#13 - 2015-12-22 22:47:45 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
While I agree that the cost scaling mechanic is dumb I think your idea is bad.

Mostly because it's exploitable and avoidable. You could simply have everyone leave corp before you declare a batch of wars to get them to minimum cost then rejoin afterwards.

I personally think cost scaling should be removed entirely. The notion that the number of players has any relationship with the capability of that group to fight a war either offensively or defensively is just totally wrong. Corp/alliance size shouldn't be a factor that the game considers at all, every group in the game, regardless of size should be treated equally.


You are correct. There is opportunity to exploit this system, but, as we have already seen, merc alliances may see this as incentive to trim dead weight.
How many more alliances will follow Tora Bushido's example if it becomes financially beneficial to them?

On top of that, how many small gang crews are there in Pirat, for example, that would willingly strike out on there own if the cost wasn't so burdensome?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#14 - 2015-12-22 23:14:45 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

To the OP, as Serendipity points out war decs are broken in a way that simply turning the fee structure upside down cannot and will not fix.


His complaints have nothing to do with wars. He just thinks docking mechanics are broken. That doesn't have a thing to do with wars.

And you're up a creek on that, by the way. They won't change wars for that, nor will they upturn the whole rest of the game because a few of you don't like station games.

Quote:

Kaarous - the Citadel structures as proposed will make no difference to war decs so stop trying to fool yourself and others into believing that.


If you really think that, you have your head up your ass.

POSes are not meaningful to player corps in highsec at present. Citadels very well might be meaningful to them. If a corp has something that is actually worth defending AND worth having to give yourself an edge for having it, then the game changes considerably.

Quote:

The current POS are not a factor in the overwhelming majoirty of the war decs currently filed.


Wrong.



Quote:

And as Seredipity points out since there will be no loot drops and the costs between POS and Citadel will be similar AND they will have space magic to instantly and safely transport you stuff to a safe location there will be even less reason to attack a citadels than there is to attack a POS.


And that, to be frank, should not be the case. If it actually makes live, it will be the single worst change ever made to EVE Online.

I honestly doubt it will actually stay that way, and if it does, they've basically killed their own game.

"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.
#15 - 2015-12-22 23:18:17 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
I agree with vimsy as well.

You make Dec costs about members and war Dec corps will have an incentive to trim their members at every opportunity and place sp restrictions on New membership rather than having total freedom to manage their Corp by their own standards.


Yep.

No matter which direction cost scaling goes, it has a net negative effect.

Fifty mil, for everybody, all the time.

"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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2015-12-23 00:19:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


And that, to be frank, should not be the case. If it actually makes live, it will be the single worst change ever made to EVE Online.

I honestly doubt it will actually stay that way, and if it does, they've basically killed their own game.

It will go live with that. Because it had to. Otherwise no-one will use them outside of WH space and Null will all rage quit when outposts get phased out long term also.
But Citadels still drop loot, just not hanger assets. What is being used is at risk, what is in mothballs is not at 'risk' though it comes with a penalty cost. That's a good balance between usability and shiny loots.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#17 - 2015-12-23 01:45:35 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

It will go live with that. Because it had to. Otherwise no-one will use them outside of WH space and Null will all rage quit when outposts get phased out long term also.


Asset safety doesn't belong anywhere when it comes to structures. Besides, as far as outposts go, that's why the extra large Citadels have the obscene firepower and tank that they do. Nothing else justifies a freaking structure with a Doomsday weapon.

Quote:

But Citadels still drop loot, just not hanger assets.


Which is what people would want to drop in the first place.

Quote:

What is being used is at risk, what is in mothballs is not at 'risk' though it comes with a penalty cost. That's a good balance between usability and shiny loots.


A good balance would be a way for the person who destroyed the Citadel to retrieve it eventually, instead of only the owner. This is not balance, it's just blatant creep of safety into a place where safety does not belong.

"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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#18 - 2015-12-23 03:23:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

A good balance would be a way for the person who destroyed the Citadel to retrieve it eventually, instead of only the owner. This is not balance, it's just blatant creep of safety into a place where safety does not belong.

Cry more bitter tears over how you can't grief the rare person to actually put anything in a POS outside of WH space anymore.
Assets in a Citadel are less safe than assets in a station are already, there is no 'creep'. It's actually an increase of risk, not a decrease in risk. Comparisons to POS are pointless since nearly all POS are not used to store assets anyway exactly because of the lack of asset safety.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#19 - 2015-12-23 03:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Cry more bitter tears over how you can't grief the rare person to actually put anything in a POS outside of WH space anymore.


Nothing of the sort, though of course you misconstrue it as you always do. Because you're selfish and you hate game balance, you claim that only outright buffs to safety equate to balance at all, in every situation.

It's not "griefing", either, much though you would like all PvP to be considered so.

"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.
#20 - 2015-12-23 03:46:56 UTC
You know what you remind me of, Nevyn?

I read an ARK steam review one time, and the guy had 1600 hours playtime logged in that, and gave it a "not recommended" review because the game has PvP and someone took his stuff, stole his dinosaurs and blew up his base.

At what point do you people realize that you're playing the wrong game? Apparently, not for at least 1600 hours.

"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.

12Next page