These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec balancing

First post
Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#41 - 2016-01-19 09:20:04 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!

500 mil is probably too high, nobody would get wardecced anymore unless it was mutual. But it should be increased. When nearly everyone is wardecced most of the time, it's kind of silly. CCP should check their charts and increase it a bit at a time until it becomes more common to not be wardecced.
Why is it silly? Because you don't personally like wardecs?

You act like wars are not a good thing. CCP has examined this directly and found that the behaviours a war engenders - being part of a corp, social interaction, PvP, just being part of the sandbox - are some of the "strongest indicators" for a new player staying with the game. Why would CCP want to reduce the amount of player interaction in highsec by make wars less affordable?

Players like the OP are free to make self-interested pleas to CCP to change wardecs, but just like with the freighter rebalance, I am not sure they are going to get what the hope for when the developers finally get around to taking another pass at iterating on wardec mechanics. Any changes are going to have at their heart the goal of reducing the ability of highsec players to isolate themselves from the sandbox, and thus open them to more interference from aggressors, not less, and certainly not more ability to carebear in isolation.
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#42 - 2016-01-19 15:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Lann Shahni wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!

500 mil is probably too high, nobody would get wardecced anymore unless it was mutual. But it should be increased. When nearly everyone is wardecced most of the time, it's kind of silly. CCP should check their charts and increase it a bit at a time until it becomes more common to not be wardecced.
Why is it silly? Because you don't personally like wardecs?

You act like wars are not a good thing. CCP has examined this directly and found that the behaviours a war engenders - being part of a corp, social interaction, PvP, just being part of the sandbox - are some of the "strongest indicators" for a new player staying with the game. Why would CCP want to reduce the amount of player interaction in highsec by make wars less affordable?

Players like the OP are free to make self-interested pleas to CCP to change wardecs, but just like with the freighter rebalance, I am not sure they are going to get what the hope for when the developers finally get around to taking another pass at iterating on wardec mechanics. Any changes are going to have at their heart the goal of reducing the ability of highsec players to isolate themselves from the sandbox, and thus open them to more interference from aggressors, not less, and certainly not more ability to carebear in isolation.


Thx for your response! :)

i do again partially agree, player interaction through wars is important, i just feel the current is realy one sided,
and belive that changing the wardec system to give more leeway to small and starting corporations,
will allow them grow, creating a more fun and enganing high sec eviroment for all!
Well except gankers, player how only attack others to cuase grief for own enjoyment,
they would be unhappy with shuch changes, since they rarely like a real figth!

as for the 500 mil, it's a sugestet price, what the exact price should be to achive the goal of previously mentioned, i don't know!

it's ha been mention often that cost of creating a corp is to low, i do agree, but as for now it is the only "escape" most have!
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#43 - 2016-01-19 15:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
sorry for the dubble post, butter fingers on my part
Black Pedro
Mine.
#44 - 2016-01-19 15:46:37 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

i do again partially agree, player interaction through wars is important, i just feel the current is realy one sided,
and belive that changing the wardec system to give more leeway to small and starting corporations,
will allow them grow, creating a more fun and enganing high sec eviroment for all!
I agree there should be some sort of accommodation for small groups that are not really trying to compete, but that would be best served by a "social corp" or perhaps a new social group mechanic that players can join to fulfill their desire for social interaction in a way that doesn't kneecap the intended conflict and competetion between real corporations trying to accumulate power and resources from the greater economy. You do not get to benefit from the destruction-based economy of New Eden without putting your stuff at risk to the other players.

Lann Shahni wrote:
Well except gankers, player how only attack others to cuase grief for own enjoyment,
they would be unhappy with shuch changes, since they realy like a real figth!
I am not sure where you get this idea. I routinely suicide gank (and on rare occasion wardec) other players, and I do not do it to cause other players "grief". I take great satisfaction in hunting, and killing the unwary and complacent. I enjoy being an agent of risk, calling other players on their reckless decisions and definitely enjoy all the loot I take from them that fills my hangers. You are playing a game where you are always suppose to be at risk. Someone attacking you doesn't mean that they hate you or want to hurt you emotionally. It just means you made yourself a target and someone is taking advantage of your weakness to their own benefit in this video game, just like when someone takes your pawn in chess they are not seeking to cause you "grief".

Wardeccers and suicide gankers are very much intended to exist in this game and you are intended to defend yourself from them. If you accept that basic premise of Eve instead of accusing everyone who attacks you of being a "griefer", you will have much more fun playing this competitive PvP game.
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#45 - 2016-01-19 16:03:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Well a definition of therms migth be in order, in my world a ganker is some one attacking whit little chance to defend them self, for no other reson then to cause emotional distress to the victim, and derives plesure there from!
in other words, a Bully!
any activety taken for some other gain is not ganking!
though we may therm them as, ai. suicide ganking Big smile
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#46 - 2016-01-19 16:29:51 UTC
Rather timely:
Among the Stars: War

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

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#47 - 2016-01-19 16:54:17 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
Well a definition of therms migth be in order, in my world a ganker is some one attacking whit little chance to defend them self, for no other reson then to cause emotional distress to the victim, and derives plesure there from!
in other words, a Bully!
any activety taken for some other gain is not ganking!
though we may therm them as, ai. suicide ganking Big smile


Trying to ascribe emotionally loaded terms like "bully" to players over in-game actions that are entirely in accordance with the game rules and the "internal morality" of the game world is fairly deplorable behavior.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#48 - 2016-01-19 17:29:19 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
Well a definition of therms migth be in order, in my world a ganker is some one attacking whit little chance to defend them self, for no other reson then to cause emotional distress to the victim, and derives plesure there from!
in other words, a Bully!
any activety taken for some other gain is not ganking!
though we may therm them as, ai. suicide ganking Big smile


Trying to ascribe emotionally loaded terms like "bully" to players over in-game actions that are entirely in accordance with the game rules and the "internal morality" of the game world is fairly deplorable behavior.


I'm sorry if offended you or others, not my intention, but I lack a better word to describe that type of behavior !
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#49 - 2016-01-19 17:40:03 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:


I'm sorry if offended you or others, not my intention, but I lack a better word to describe that type of behavior !


Why do you feel you need to call it anything?

It reads like a cheap attempt to dehumanize players you don't like through the wonders of labeling in an effort to drum up sympathy for your own position. They're not people playing a sandbox video game, they're "bullies" and you're a "bullying victim".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Iain Cariaba
#50 - 2016-01-19 19:27:49 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
Well a definition of therms migth be in order, in my world a ganker is some one attacking whit little chance to defend them self, for no other reson then to cause emotional distress to the victim, and derives plesure there from!
in other words, a Bully!
any activety taken for some other gain is not ganking!
though we may therm them as, ai. suicide ganking Big smile

Fortunately, the word ganking has already been defined long before you did it.

Urban Dictionary wrote:
Ganking
It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one high level player does the same action to a player way below his or her own level

Note there is no reference at all about the emotional state of the victim, nor the mental state of the ganker.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2016-01-19 21:26:10 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
in my world a ganker is some one attacking whit little chance to defend them self, for no other reson then to cause emotional distress to the victim, and derives plesure there from!
in other words, a Bully!


Your world is very obviously not the world of EVE Online.

Oh, and "gank" stands and has always stood for "gang kill". Just a little actual facts for you.

"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.

Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#52 - 2016-01-19 22:36:17 UTC
While this "lesson" in terminology has been fun! ;)
I fear we are getting of topic again!

As before we are debating if the current wardec system is balanced,
I argue that it is not, and have suggested an alternative,
And some disagree and agree!

Doing this, I have come up with another alternative, as before not sure it's the perfect solution,
But it is a suggestion!

Why not tie the wardec system together with the bounty system?
So that your corp/alliance can only get wardec if they have a bounty on them,
When the bounty is out, the war ends

That would ad some risk to attacker if they are bounty placer,
And way for the defender to end the, though that might be very expensive, depending on the bounty

And ofcause mutual wars don't end!

And the current wardec prices remain as is!
Naj Panora
Shadow Broker Fleet
#53 - 2016-01-19 23:19:00 UTC
I wrote on a year or two ago and put some more thought into it. Originally I said that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the stations should be not be available to be docked in to the aggressor at random. The only exception to this would be the aggressor's declared HQ, that station would always be an open station. On top of the stations that auto lock the aggressor out factions will lock the aggressor out based on how much rep a corp has with them. Example if a corp has a 3.0 standing with Spacelane Patrol then there is a 30% chance that the aggressor will not be able to dock at any Spacelane stations. This would just give the defender a chance to actually fight the aggressor and not let the aggressor dock up if they don't like the odds.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#54 - 2016-01-19 23:23:03 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
While this "lesson" in terminology has been fun! ;)
I fear we are getting of topic again!

As before we are debating if the current wardec system is balanced,
I argue that it is not, and have suggested an alternative,
And some disagree and agree!

Doing this, I have come up with another alternative, as before not sure it's the perfect solution,
But it is a suggestion!

Why not tie the wardec system together with the bounty system?
So that your corp/alliance can only get wardec if they have a bounty on them,
When the bounty is out, the war ends

That would ad some risk to attacker if they are bounty placer,
And way for the defender to end the, though that might be very expensive, depending on the bounty

And ofcause mutual wars don't end!

And the current wardec prices remain as is!


First of all, that's mechanically nonsensical. Fine, I'll just throw a 100K bounty on you and THEN wardec you. Way to accomplish nothing.

Secondly, it's still fundamentally anti-Eve to suggest that there must be some sort of justification for a war dec.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Iain Cariaba
#55 - 2016-01-19 23:46:49 UTC
Naj Panora wrote:
I wrote on a year or two ago and put some more thought into it. Originally I said that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the stations should be not be available to be docked in to the aggressor at random. The only exception to this would be the aggressor's declared HQ, that station would always be an open station. On top of the stations that auto lock the aggressor out factions will lock the aggressor out based on how much rep a corp has with them. Example if a corp has a 3.0 standing with Spacelane Patrol then there is a 30% chance that the aggressor will not be able to dock at any Spacelane stations. This would just give the defender a chance to actually fight the aggressor and not let the aggressor dock up if they don't like the odds.

As was explained to you a year or two ago, the NPC corporations, outside of Concord, don't care what a miniscule subset of immortal space demigods do to each other.
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#56 - 2016-01-19 23:47:08 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
While this "lesson" in terminology has been fun! ;)
I fear we are getting of topic again!

As before we are debating if the current wardec system is balanced,
I argue that it is not, and have suggested an alternative,
And some disagree and agree!

Doing this, I have come up with another alternative, as before not sure it's the perfect solution,
But it is a suggestion!

Why not tie the wardec system together with the bounty system?
So that your corp/alliance can only get wardec if they have a bounty on them,
When the bounty is out, the war ends

That would ad some risk to attacker if they are bounty placer,
And way for the defender to end the, though that might be very expensive, depending on the bounty

And ofcause mutual wars don't end!

And the current wardec prices remain as is!


First of all, that's mechanically nonsensical. Fine, I'll just throw a 100K bounty on you and THEN wardec you. Way to accomplish nothing.

Secondly, it's still fundamentally anti-Eve to suggest that there must be some sort of justification for a war dec.


Well in the case of only placing 100k bounty, the defender would have lose a frigate and the war would end right then and there!

For it to be anti-eve, I don't agree, adding a risk to the attack or a resin is not anti-eve!
But we probably don't agree that system is unbalanced to begin whit, so any change in balance would seem nonsense to you!
Am I right? :)
Iain Cariaba
#57 - 2016-01-19 23:51:04 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
While this "lesson" in terminology has been fun! ;)
I fear we are getting of topic again!

As before we are debating if the current wardec system is balanced,
I argue that it is not, and have suggested an alternative,
And some disagree and agree!

Doing this, I have come up with another alternative, as before not sure it's the perfect solution,
But it is a suggestion!

Why not tie the wardec system together with the bounty system?
So that your corp/alliance can only get wardec if they have a bounty on them,
When the bounty is out, the war ends

That would ad some risk to attacker if they are bounty placer,
And way for the defender to end the, though that might be very expensive, depending on the bounty

And ofcause mutual wars don't end!

And the current wardec prices remain as is!


First of all, that's mechanically nonsensical. Fine, I'll just throw a 100K bounty on you and THEN wardec you. Way to accomplish nothing.

Secondly, it's still fundamentally anti-Eve to suggest that there must be some sort of justification for a war dec.


Well in the case of only placing 100k bounty, the defender would have lose a frigate and the war would end right then and there!

For it to be anti-eve, I don't agree, adding a risk to the attack or a resin is not anti-eve!
But we probably don't agree that system is unbalanced to begin whit, so any change in balance would seem nonsense to you!
Am I right? :)

The system isn't unbalanced, merely your perception of it. Stop being a victim and you'd realize this.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#58 - 2016-01-19 23:53:53 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:


Well in the case of only placing 100k bounty, the defender would have lose a frigate and the war would end right then and there!

For it to be anti-eve, I don't agree, adding a risk to the attack or a resin is not anti-eve!
But we probably don't agree that system is unbalanced to begin whit, so any change in balance would seem nonsense to you!
Am I right? :)


Not quite. The war dec system is deeply flawed in myriad ways that would justify significant changes - it's just not really a matter of "balance" and certainly not one of "fairness".

Your position essentially boils down to, "War decs should be made so prohibitively obnoxious that there's no conceivable way anyone would ever use one against me so I can AFK mine in peace forever and ever and ever! But for the sake of balance, we'll still allow them to technically exist even though we've made it utterly pointless."

You seem to think the system should be responsible for your self-defense, and you shouldn't have to do the first ******* thing for yourself.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#59 - 2016-01-20 00:11:32 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

Why not tie the wardec system together with the bounty system?


Why not stop making suggestions out of ignorance?

The mechanic isn't broken just because you're bad at it.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2016-01-20 00:16:15 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rather timely:
Among the Stars: War


Hmmm... So, the best way to fight off a wardec in the current mechanic is to not fight at all..

Nope.. That's not broken one bit..

/sarcasm.