These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Bad Idea for Wardecs in High Sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#21 - 2016-03-23 04:40:21 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
A makes ship
Sells ship for 100 mil isk to B
B insures ship for 20 mil
C makes modules and ammo
C sells modules and ammo to B for 20 million isk (going cheeeeeap)
B fits modules to ship and places ammo in hold

Now, B loses ship and insurance payout is 50 mil isk.
The loot drop from the ship totals a random amount, but we'll be kind and assume all 20 million in loot drops.
120 mil isk was lost but only 70 mil in isk was returned to the system...

Again, this assumes half payout (which is unlikely for any ship costing that much) and assumes all loot drops.

If people could make money by losing ships, there'd be a whole lot less hesitation to do so, and a whole lot less incentive to destroy said ship.

For the love of whatever, please check your facts. (or lack there of)


Just... stop. You're horribly, horribly wrong.

The only isk to leave the economy is the purchase of insurance. The isk that enters the economy is the insurance payout. If the latter is larger than the former -- and it is; that's how insurance works in Eve -- then the numbers don't matter: ship loss is an isk faucet.

Stop trying to measure this based on your wallet or the assumed value of goods; whether anything drops at all is of absolutely no importance. Those things don't matter when we're talking about faucets and sinks. The only thing that matters is the flow of money. When things blow up, there's more money. Period. It's a faucet.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2016-03-23 04:59:22 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:


Just... stop. You're horribly, horribly wrong.

The only isk to leave the economy is the purchase of insurance. The isk that enters the economy is the insurance payout. If the latter is larger than the former -- and it is; that's how insurance works in Eve -- then the numbers don't matter: ship loss is an isk faucet.

Stop trying to measure this based on your wallet or the assumed value of goods; whether anything drops at all is of absolutely no importance. Those things don't matter when we're talking about faucets and sinks. The only thing that matters is the flow of money. When things blow up, there's more money. Period. It's a faucet.


The assumed value of goods is relevant.
That ship and modules are effectively 120 mil isk.
If someone else agreed to a trade of their ship to yours, both worth 120 mil isk, the trade would be valid as both hold monetary value.
Remove currency from the equation and all commodities become currency.
Destroy said commodities and you have effectively destroyed currency.

It works this way whether their it is currency or commodity based exchange.

Therefore, 120 mil in assets were removed from the system. Might as well have been the isk?

How does this apply? Economics 101.
The removal or consumption of commodities reduces the supply, thus increasing monetary value of the remaining commodities of likeness. The cost of that same hull goes up, the loss vs payout of insurance becomes more significant.

It may not be the traditional understanding of an isk sink, but it is an isk sink because everything has a monetary value.
Either way, currency is removed from the system.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#23 - 2016-03-23 05:14:52 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
It may not be the traditional understanding of an isk sink, but it is an isk sink because everything has a monetary value.
Either way, currency is removed from the system.


Do you know why it doesn't fit the "traditional understanding" of an isk sink?

Wait for it....

It's because the "traditional understanding" describes actual isk sinks and yours doesn't. You're talking about an entirely different phenomenon somehow linked to the total value in the economy, not the total supply of money. Those are not the same thing, and the entire faucet/sink discussion is about the latter.

All you've managed to do is say, yeah, the sky is a color called green. It's not a traditional understanding of green, but it's still green, since every color has a name, but they're arbitrary, so I'll call it green.

Congratulations: the sky is blue, and only removal of currency from the economy is a sink.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2016-03-23 06:52:54 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Moving all corporate benefits into a citadel and make them free to shoot is a reasonable alternative to wardecs. It does make it significantly riskier to bash a structure though as the aggressor is now suspect and cannot shoot the defenders until they take an action.

It would be a significant change but one worth exploring. I think a compromise though might be to move a corporation benefits into citadels and then remove wardecs against corporations with no in-space structure.


Hmm.. it has some merit.


Is there any premise on deccers being required to have a citadel in order to attack others?
I don't know that it would matter, as it would be a bit risky to attack a citadel.
However, them being free of all retaliation (IE counter decs) would be problematic.

It's an interesting premise though..
Combines the idea of casual corps with competitive corps, making competitive corps more risky, but allowing casual corps to build up stability and force BEFORE they opt to become war targets.

I would also like to add some considerations.

1) if you're in an NPC corp, you are considered an enemy of the opposing factions, thus cannot leave the related NPC space of your NPC corp. This limits alt transport.

2) Production is removed from NPC stations and is a CORPORATE ability. IE, you cannot produce if you aren't in a player corp.

3) .. And of course you cannot dec if you do not have a corporate/alliance citadel.

Food for thought

It should be noted that my suggestions are negative for everyone, not just deccers.


Sure, declaring war is a corporate function and would require a structure as well.

The idea of making structure vulnerable to suspect flags is not that outlandish, and CCP Nullarbor was speculating on just that on Slack for citadels, at least while they are being deployed.

The problem is the new structures are already going to be difficult to attack. They auto-point your ship while bashing for the remainder of the weapon timer. Going suspect, in highsec with an expensive bashing fleet that can't warp is a lot to ask and would keep many small groups from trying to explode a structure. So two alternative suggestions:

1) Instead of a suspect flag, you pick up a limited engagement flag with the corporation that owns a structure. Sure, that would allow you to essentially start a wardec just by shooting, but you could keep the timers short and it would prevent any random from jumping in, or the corp members from using CONCORD for tactical purposes. This would of course only be possible during the vulnerability windows of the structure.

2) Players from a Corp that own a structure lose CONCORD protection while in a system that has an active structure vulnerability timer. This would be like a mini version of the sov timers where for a few hours a week, a structure owning corporation would have to focus on defense. Players could easily avoid this by staying out of that system, or in an alt Corp, but then could not participate in the defense of the structure.

Or some combination of the similar ideas.

Unlike the OP, the goal of these ideas is not to make highsec safer. It is not suppose to be safe, especially for those in corporations. They are to promote conflict and make people actually fight over structures and corporation assets while reducing the collateral damage on the small, what are effectively social corps that aren't really trying to compete. If you don't have a structure, you are practically in the NPC Corp already and should have some protection from wars.

In any case, if you are benefiting from a structure/corporation you need to defend it. Being small/new/peaceful/incompetent is not a reason you should get free protection. Otherwise veterans will just make themselves small/new/peaceful/incompetent and exploit that free protection. If you want protection from wars, the only acceptable way in a sandbox game is to give up the economic and other benefits of being in a corporation. Tying all those to a structure is a nice way to do that, but it does mean a viable alternate structure bashing mechanic is needed to do so, one that can be used by small aggressor corporations without risk that all of New Eden is going to show up and explode their immobilized fleet. "Highsec" also applies to them and they should know who they are likely fighting.

In any case these are major changes which will require careful consideration. There is no reason not to engage in some high level brainstorming, but any change will have to wait until a major revamp that rebalances all of the highsec corporation/war/structure mechanics together.




The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2016-03-23 07:05:04 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
[quote=Joe Risalo]

Sure, declaring war is a corporate function and would require a structure as well.

The idea of making structure vulnerable to suspect flags is not that outlandish, and CCP Nullarbor was speculating on just that on Slack for citadels, at least while they are being deployed.

The problem is the new structures are already going to be difficult to attack. They auto-point your ship while bashing for the remainder of the weapon timer. Going suspect, in highsec with an expensive bashing fleet that can't warp is a lot to ask and would keep many small groups from trying to explode a structure. So two alternative suggestions:

1) Instead of a suspect flag, you pick up a limited engagement flag with the corporation that owns a structure. Sure, that would allow you to essentially start a wardec just by shooting, but you could keep the timers short and it would prevent any random from jumping in, or the corp members from using CONCORD for tactical purposes. This would of course only be possible during the vulnerability windows of the structure.

2) Players from a Corp that own a structure lose CONCORD protection while in a system that has an active structure vulnerability timer. This would be like a mini version of the sov timers where for a few hours a week, a structure owning corporation would have to focus on defense. Players could easily avoid this by staying out of that system, or in an alt Corp, but then could not participate in the defense of the structure.

Or some combination of the similar ideas.

Unlike the OP, the goal of these ideas is not to make highsec safer. It is not suppose to be safe, especially for those in corporations. They are to promote conflict and make people actually fight over structures and corporation assets while reducing the collateral damage on the small, what are effectively social corps that aren't really trying to compete. If you don't have a structure, you are practically in the NPC Corp already and should have some protection from wars.

In any case, if you are benefiting from a structure/corporation you need to defend it. Being small/new/peaceful/incompetent is not a reason you should get free protection. Otherwise veterans will just make themselves small/new/peaceful/incompetent and exploit that free protection. If you want protection from wars, the only acceptable way in a sandbox game is to give up the economic and other benefits of being in a corporation. Tying all those to a structure is a nice way to do that, but it does mean a viable alternate structure bashing mechanic is needed to do so, one that can be used by small aggressor corporations without risk that all of New Eden is going to show up and explode their immobilized fleet. "Highsec" also applies to them and they should know who they are likely fighting.

In any case these are major changes which will require careful consideration. There is no reason not to engage in some high level brainstorming, but any change will have to wait until a major revamp that rebalances all of the highsec corporation/war/structure mechanics together.


Hmm.. I'm kinda more focused on the idea of wardecs being required in order to bash the structure, and structures being required to wardec.
Thus, both parties are vulnerable and outside inteference is a non-factor, as there is no suspect timers involved.

However, that idea would not work without the removal of the production ability outside of player corps, thus making becoming a competitive corp more viable and preferred.
The removal of cross faction transport from NPC corp based characters, as well as production, is essentially a removal of protections for all Eve entities that are used to game the system in order to fund efforts elsewhere.

If I destroy the deccer's citadel, I have effectively removed their ability to produce and wardec, and if they destroy my citadel, they have removed my ability to produce and have removed me as a competitor.

It may also help to reduce the notable lack of value given to player corps.. You would no longer have to fold corp in order to drop a dec.. Either take down your citadel or let it get blown up.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#26 - 2016-03-23 07:18:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Joe Risalo wrote:
Hmm.. I'm kinda more focused on the idea of wardecs being required in order to bash the structure, and structures being required to wardec.
Thus, both parties are vulnerable and outside inteference is a non-factor, as there is no suspect timers involved.

However, that idea would not work without the removal of the production ability outside of player corps, thus making becoming a competitive corp more viable and preferred.
The removal of cross faction transport from NPC corp based characters, as well as production, is essentially a removal of protections for all Eve entities that are used to game the system in order to fund efforts elsewhere.

If I destroy the deccer's citadel, I have effectively removed their ability to produce and wardec, and if they destroy my citadel, they have removed my ability to produce and have removed me as a competitor.

It may also help to reduce the notable lack of value given to player corps.. You would no longer have to fold corp in order to drop a dec.. Either take down your citadel or let it get blown up.

Yes. What is really needed is more benefits for corporations. Structures that improve everything under the sun, and perhaps the removal or increased taxes on NPC station services, just like they are doing by increasing the market taxes.

Wars will already have much more meaning once citadels and the new other structures are released. Players will have to defend them or lose them. Restoring some risk vs. reward is all that is needed: significant corporate/structure benefits that have to be defended or lost.

But returning to the OP, formal war declarations are not the only mechanic one can envision to enable conflict between corporations in highsec. With the improvements in the CrimeWatch flagging system, wars between limited groups could become more dynamic and occur more organically based around structures. It's worth thinking about anyway.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2016-03-23 12:19:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Hmm.. I'm kinda more focused on the idea of wardecs being required in order to bash the structure, and structures being required to wardec.
Thus, both parties are vulnerable and outside inteference is a non-factor, as there is no suspect timers involved.

However, that idea would not work without the removal of the production ability outside of player corps, thus making becoming a competitive corp more viable and preferred.
The removal of cross faction transport from NPC corp based characters, as well as production, is essentially a removal of protections for all Eve entities that are used to game the system in order to fund efforts elsewhere.

If I destroy the deccer's citadel, I have effectively removed their ability to produce and wardec, and if they destroy my citadel, they have removed my ability to produce and have removed me as a competitor.

It may also help to reduce the notable lack of value given to player corps.. You would no longer have to fold corp in order to drop a dec.. Either take down your citadel or let it get blown up.

Yes. What is really needed is more benefits for corporations. Structures that improve everything under the sun, and perhaps the removal or increased taxes on NPC station services, just like they are doing by increasing the market taxes.

Wars will already have much more meaning once citadels and the new other structures are released. Players will have to defend them or lose them. Restoring some risk vs. reward is all that is needed: significant corporate/structure benefits that have to be defended or lost.

But returning to the OP, formal war declarations are not the only mechanic one can envision to enable conflict between corporations in highsec. With the improvements in the CrimeWatch flagging system, wars between limited groups could become more dynamic and occur more organically based around structures. It's worth thinking about anyway.


Yes, but at the same time, the safety of HS should give the defender time to respond.
IE, if Goons roll into HS with a 2 thousand man fleet, they shouldn't be able to alpha down Citadels without requiring a dec.
This would be bad for everyone, possibly more so for wardeccing entities.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#28 - 2016-03-23 12:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Joe Risalo wrote:

Yes, but at the same time, the safety of HS should give the defender time to respond.
IE, if Goons roll into HS with a 2 thousand man fleet, they shouldn't be able to alpha down Citadels without requiring a dec.
This would be bad for everyone, possibly more so for wardeccing entities.
I don't know. Citadels are pretty safe already. They require three reinforcements over 7+ days and can only be attacked during limited, and completely defined by the defender, vulnerability windows. There is no chance of a fleet rolling through and exploding citadels before the defenders have time to respond.

Maybe it would be too much for some of the other to-be-released structures I guess if they have less reinforcements or larger vulnerability windows, but citadels are safe enough to tolerate the loss of the 24h warning given that you have two more chances to show up and defend.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#29 - 2016-03-23 16:03:56 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
SandKid wrote:
All that isk and for what?


Who cares what it's for? That's a huge isk sink that you're proposing to do away with. We need more sinks, not fewer. Unless you can come up with a clever way to make ganking a sink (right now it's actually a faucet) the whole thing is a non-starter from a macroeconomic perspective.


lol ganking a faucet? faucets pour isk, that's just a transfer of goods of what was someone else to now being theres assuming most of the goods don't get destroyed

Faucets are ratting, anom, missions as far as isk goes

now if your aiming at fewer goods on the market faucets are mining, pi, moons, manufacturing that people use so many alts to produce so much its stupid

goods simply change hands and shift isk with taxes only being a sink, unless its a trade good being sold to an npc it does not creat isk. limit the goods, increase the cost.

isk printing is the magical creation of isk with no transfer, you use a amarr ship with t1 laser crystals you wont even be using up and lowering the count of ammo and you have the ultimate isk printer

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#30 - 2016-03-23 16:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Agondray wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
SandKid wrote:
All that isk and for what?


Who cares what it's for? That's a huge isk sink that you're proposing to do away with. We need more sinks, not fewer. Unless you can come up with a clever way to make ganking a sink (right now it's actually a faucet) the whole thing is a non-starter from a macroeconomic perspective.


lol ganking a faucet? faucets pour isk, that's just a transfer of goods of what was someone else to now being theres assuming most of the goods don't get destroyed


Ships explode, insurance is paid, isk is created through insurance, no is isk lost from the system. Net result: more isk in the system.

Faucet.

I'm constantly amazed at how hard it is for people to understand what a sink or faucet is.
SandKid
Sunset Logistics Company
#31 - 2016-03-23 18:19:16 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Agondray wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
SandKid wrote:
All that isk and for what?


Who cares what it's for? That's a huge isk sink that you're proposing to do away with. We need more sinks, not fewer. Unless you can come up with a clever way to make ganking a sink (right now it's actually a faucet) the whole thing is a non-starter from a macroeconomic perspective.


lol ganking a faucet? faucets pour isk, that's just a transfer of goods of what was someone else to now being theres assuming most of the goods don't get destroyed


Ships explode, insurance is paid, isk is created through insurance, no is isk lost from the system. Net result: more isk in the system.

Faucet.

I'm constantly amazed at how hard it is for people to understand what a sink or faucet is.


I'm amazed at this bad idea making it to page 2...but then again, you know what they say about dumb people in large quantities.

I'm also amazed that the only real pushback on removing wardecs has to do with economics...not gameplay, but I suppose someobody WOULD wonder about the trillions of isk being spent on something so simple and yet poorly prepared for the current mechanics of conflict in eve.

Finally, I find it amazing that the number 1 problem with wardecs being removed apparently has to do with insurance as an isk faucet...which I understand to some extent and yet at the same time I feel if that is really the only problem, why not just adjust insurance payouts (again).

Really...I don't see a huge problem with removing wardecs. Conflict in hisec should be criminal or self-defense (which certainly won't stop conflict). They serve absolutely no purpose except, as you have already said earlier, a mess of red tape and money for the singular purpose of not having to deal with CONCORD to attack someone. You want to talk about an isk faucet: how many tens of thousands of ships are NOT destroyed daily because of wardecs? How many almost-could-have-been-an-attack-but-I-flash-in-local happen daily? Think about how much wardecs STOP conflict, not start it.

Yes, removal of wardecs makes carebears and newbros safer to some extent but it far from prevents conflicts. You want to deprive your enemies of trade hubs? Do it, you don't need a wardec for that. You want to grief tiny corps in hisec - ever hear of Hulkageddon? That sure as hell didn't need wardecs to be a HUGE success for several years. You want great big fights like RvB: use FW, go to low and hash it out, fight over moons, break the blue donuts, use dueling, gank somebody because you hate their skin choice...w/e scratches your itch. You don't need a wardec to do it so why waste the isk on one? If you're a leader of an alliance why in the heck would you choose to go through the headache of organizing wardecs when you can just pay for the ganks?

In what shape or form has organized war ever been a good idea? The Britons were the last to do it and you saw how that turned out. Why build a system meant for 4X or turnbased games into a real-time, hardcore, takes-your-cookie-and-laughs game? You don't deserve a 24 hour warning - you have the threat of CONCORD protecting you.

[Insert the millions of theads on 'don't be a target' here]

Removing wardecs isn't about protecting hisec - it's about removing a system that provides zero value to this game and in fact removes value from the game (and I'm not referring to the isk). It makes about as much sense as the UN stating for the two-hundredth time that they strongly condemn terrorism: I wonder how much money is wasted on making that statement and broadcasting it to an enemy that mostly doesn't even read the languages the UN posts in.

It's a bad idea to remove wardecs because nobody can envision a system without them. I'm positing that you don't need a replacement system at all. Just remove wardecs. It's obsolete because it can be easily avoided (corp hopping, which costs more isk in arbitrary fees) and serves no beneficial purpose for the game.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#32 - 2016-03-23 18:47:03 UTC
SandKid wrote:
~Snip~


People are not debating the remove wardec concept, cause it's so incredibly stupid that it's not worth talking about. Seriously. Talking about peoples misconceptions about what an isk sink is seems to be the only remaining thing worth a comment.

It's one more thread by a person whining about wardecs, in a history of people whining about wardecs that stretched over a decade. Asking for safety, giving nothing in return, because he overestimates the importance of his place in the game. High sec is high sec, not safe sec. If you can't cope with the level of safety, that's your problem. There have been hundreds to thousands of threads about wardecs, and there will be thousands more, but even most other people who think they should be scaled down don't have the irrational brass balls to call the mechanic useless and call for its total removal.

You assertion that because suicide ganking exists that wardecs should be removed is so incredibly vacant of any coherence that it baffles me. Seriously. It's like saying that because there are 2 entirely different ways to an end, we should remove all but one, because 1 is good enough.

You are the crazy man standing on a box shouting incoherent gibberish to passerby's. Do people stop and listen to the person and debate with him? No, because the crazy man is warning everyone that failure to heed his words about the King being a secret lizard person will result in an apocalypse cause by flying capybaras.

So people are not talking about your main idea? That's because it's a flying capybara.
Previous page12