These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New War Dec system - massively article - Very good points covered.

Author
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-04-16 20:42:59 UTC
thats stupid though..
you : i declare war on derp
me: k
you: i killed your structure i win
me: k
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#22 - 2012-04-16 20:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
No. He is talking about the ability to make a war mutual, which is already part of the wardec system.

Ah... thanks.

Herping yourDerp wrote:
thats stupid though..
you : i declare war on derp
me: k
you: i killed your structure i win
me: k

Confirmed stupid mechanic.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-04-16 20:44:50 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
What reason does anyone have to do this? One can already fight back or just not undock and that will not change. Unless you are bringing other into the fight making it mutual doesn't provide any differences, and if you are bringing backup, that is exactly what mercenary corps are doing. So what are you getting at?


I am getting at that the author is wrong assuming that an attacker can "weasel" out of a war by simply dropping the war.

You seam, as much as the author, not to know the purpose of wardecs. Players compete about recources, Corps compete about players and alliances compete about corps. The wardec system is meant to provide means to enforce that competition in highsec. An individual pilot is free to rebuilt after his former corp is driven out of business by dropping back into a NPC corp. Quite in contrast for a corp that should vanish when driven out of business. That's why co-operations are called that way. To refer to the cut-throat-competition that is described in great detail in the back story.

It's even in the name of the game: Everyone vs. Everyone.

Quite sad to see so many players that don't know the basics.

I'd say you are missing some fundamental parts of everyone vs everyone yourself. Simple things like knowing your targets, depriving them of what they want, and getting what you want all at the same time. An example involving wardecs:

I get a wardec. I look up my opponent. I see characters significantly older than mine who are very PvP active. My chances of doing serious damage with my character/players skills and numbers available are slim.

I have alts, those alts are spread out amongst different corps or some in NPC. Even without corp hopping I have an easy means to bypass your interference to a reasonable degree.

If I fight, I lose ships and productivity, if I don't you paid for nothing and I continue close to normal operations and I've effectively won.

You did get one thing right, it is sad when people don't know the basics.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#24 - 2012-04-16 20:45:28 UTC
Herping yourDerp wrote:
wardecs aren't for war right now which is the actual problem.


What do you think real wars are like?

I'm genuinely curious.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2012-04-16 20:45:38 UTC
Gogela wrote:
wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...
No, no, no, nothing that awful — just something that's a bit silly. They're changing how you declare a war mutual (at least as of the last time it was mentioned). Right now, you can do it at any time, just to hammer the point home that the attacker picked the wrong target and now you're out for bloody vengeance. They've said that this will change so that you can only declare a war mutual during the first 24-hour wind-up period before the war actually goes active.

Most likely, this is due to the defender's ability to bring allies into the war, and they probably thought that it would be awfully mean if the defender could enlist half the galaxy and then, at the very last second and with all that backing secured, ensure that the original attacker cannot get out of it. This somewhat ties into Nyphur's complaint about corps “weaseling” out of their own failed wardecs.

However, since we are now being given a more fully-featured surrender mechanic, I simply don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to get revenge that way. Yes, they picked the wrong target, and yes, it turned out every corp north of HED-GP is now out to get them… so what? Tough luck — time to bite the bullet. Slink over to the defender's office, get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness. That sounds more like the way it should work.
Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#26 - 2012-04-16 20:47:44 UTC
Gogela wrote:
wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...


No, he's saying that the defender can trap an attacker in to a war by making it mutual. This will stop the attacker dropping out of the war unless they explicitly surrender, rather than just being able to let the wardec lapse.

The problem is that the defending corp must make that mutual decision within the first 24 hour notification period, before the war has actually started
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#27 - 2012-04-16 20:50:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...
No, no, no, nothing that awful — just something that's a bit silly. They're changing how you declare a war mutual (at least as of the last time it was mentioned). Right now, you can do it at any time, just to hammer the point home that the attacker picked the wrong target and now you're out for bloody vengeance. They've said that this will change so that you can only declare a war mutual during the first 24-hour wind-up period before the war actually goes active.

Most likely, this is due to the defender's ability to bring allies into the war, and they probably thought that it would be awfully mean if the defender could enlist half the galaxy and then, at the very last second and with all that backing secured, ensure that the original attacker cannot get out of it. This somewhat ties into Nyphur's complaint about corps “weaseling” out of their own failed wardecs.

However, since we are now being given a more fully-featured surrender mechanic, I simply don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to get revenge that way. Yes, they picked the wrong target, and yes, it turned out every corp north of HED-GP is now out to get them… so what? Tough luck — time to bite the bullet. Slink over to the defender's office, get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness. That sounds more like the way it should work.

I totally agree with how that should work. The sword should cut freely in both directions.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2012-04-16 20:50:09 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Herping yourDerp wrote:
wardecs aren't for war right now which is the actual problem.


What do you think real wars are like?

I'm genuinely curious.


to engage in armed conflict for:
resources<- doesn't happen in highsec
land<- nope not in highsec
intolerance other races religions or creeds <- probably against TOS if about RL stuff, in game most corps have multiple races and ideologies.

pretty sure there has never been a war, in the entirety of human history that involved "lets go to war for no benefit"
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-04-16 20:51:11 UTC
Bel Amar wrote:
Gogela wrote:
wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...


No, he's saying that the defender can trap an attacker in to a war by making it mutual. This will stop the attacker dropping out of the war unless they explicitly surrender, rather than just being able to let the wardec lapse.

The problem is that the defending corp must make that mutual decision within the first 24 hour notification period, before the war has actually started


this is dumb because there will be
ITS A TARP
corps that look juicy, get decced, declare mutual then just play on alts for the rest of their lives.
Adunh Slavy
#30 - 2012-04-16 20:54:23 UTC
The article does make a good central point. War decs lack meaning. Having something to fight over would be a good thing. War just for the sake of war is lame.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#31 - 2012-04-16 20:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Micheal Dietrich
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Dec-shields under the proposed changes are going away. Assuming this article is a response to that, the omission is entirely relevant.


Nothing is stopping a player from corp hopping into an alt corp. There is more than one form of dec-shield out there.


Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Calling him factually wrong would be like stating it never happens. If no one had alts then perhaps this could be considered valid, but the idea that no one has ever thought of having their means to continue business as usual in a different corp from the one they are using to declare war for whatever reason is laughable.


No it is not like saying it never happens. I know there shell corps out there, you know that there are shell corps out there. But he is stating that we are all alt corps and we only pick on weak players and industrials. That is factually wrong. We are the big bad boogy to many carebear corps and they commonly tell campfire stories about us to each other. How would a corp know what the other corp does once their own war has ended.


Tyberius Franklin wrote:

This again goes back to target selection. Knowing your opponents numbers and activity provides an invaluable potential resource for an attacker who also has the initiative. It allows you to ensure you have all reasonable advantages. Why would someone who is trying to accomplish anything other than getting blown up want to undock to that?



I've said it twice and I'll say it again, a corp is only as weak as they allow themselves to be. You don't want to do your homework on the people who are attacking you, fine. You don't want to seek help in removing the problem, fine. You don't want to learn how to fight, fine. You have the tools, if you choose not to use them then don't look to blame anyone but yourself.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#32 - 2012-04-16 20:54:57 UTC
Herping yourDerp wrote:
Bel Amar wrote:
Gogela wrote:
wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...


No, he's saying that the defender can trap an attacker in to a war by making it mutual. This will stop the attacker dropping out of the war unless they explicitly surrender, rather than just being able to let the wardec lapse.

The problem is that the defending corp must make that mutual decision within the first 24 hour notification period, before the war has actually started


this is dumb because there will be
ITS A TARP
corps that look juicy, get decced, declare mutual then just play on alts for the rest of their lives.

Sounds like the price you risk paying for having poor judgement as a CEO. Either deal with these alts that never log in, or dissolve your corp and start over having learned a valuable lesson about thinking before you act.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#33 - 2012-04-16 20:55:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Bane Necran wrote:
Quote:
The main issue is that it's hilariously biased in favour of the aggressor, who can prepare for the war and will always pick weak or industrial targets.


This is how the real world works. It's generally considered unwise to inform the person you're going to attack ahead of time, because they'll prepare. See: 'surprise attack', or the politically correct term 'pre-emptive strike'. If you want to have any chance for peace in hostile political climates you have to prepare for war.

Some other good points, though.


In the real world, wars are fought for a reason, not for fun.

In the real world, wars can be lost by either side.

In the real world, the leader declaring a war faces severe consequences even if he wins the war.

And very specially, in the real world, most people who lose a war once can't wage war never again. War it's game over if you lose, and this is the bloody reason of all the above.
gfldex
#34 - 2012-04-16 20:56:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'd say you are missing some fundamental parts of everyone vs everyone yourself. Simple things like knowing your targets, depriving them of what they want, and getting what you want all at the same time. An example involving wardecs:


And why do you have a char in a player corp in the first place? What do you want from being in a player corp?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I get a wardec. I look up my opponent. I see characters significantly older than mine who are very PvP active. My chances of doing serious damage with my character/players skills and numbers available are slim.


It is hardly your opponents fault that you are unable to use what you have against them. For any tactic there is a counter. If your corp is so terrible that you can field what is needed to win the war you need to change that, or be driven out of business.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I have alts, those alts are spread out amongst different corps or some in NPC. Even without corp hopping I have an easy means to bypass your interference to a reasonable degree.

If I fight, I lose ships and productivity, if I don't you paid for nothing and I continue close to normal operations and I've effectively won.


And that's why wardecs have to be cheap. If somebody is capable to disrupt your normal operations and you don't care, why do you do them in the first place? What is it that you want that others can you deny to have?

I'm terribly sorry but the argument that wars are pointless because of alts is invalid because if you don't need your main you have that main for no reason. As such a wardec does not need to bother you. You seam to bother quite a lot though.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#35 - 2012-04-16 20:57:06 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Sounds like the price you risk paying for having poor judgement as a CEO. Either deal with these alts that never log in, or dissolve your corp and start over having learned a valuable lesson about thinking before you act.


This is doubly the case, given that war history will be available for every corp under the new system
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2012-04-16 20:59:07 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Herping yourDerp wrote:
this is dumb because there will be
ITS A TARP
corps that look juicy, get decced, declare mutual then just play on alts for the rest of their lives.

Sounds like the price you risk paying for having poor judgement as a CEO. Either deal with these alts that never log in, or dissolve your corp and start over having learned a valuable lesson about thinking before you act.
…and anyway, those trap-corps will exist even with the 24h limit to declarations of mutuality, and would exist right now if it was really “a thing” that people would engage in since the mechanic already exists.

Is it a problem now? Can't say I've ever heard of it. So why would it be a problem afterwards?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#37 - 2012-04-16 20:59:18 UTC
Herping yourDerp wrote:
this is dumb because there will be
ITS A TARP
corps that look juicy, get decced, declare mutual then just play on alts for the rest of their lives.

I might be wrong, but doesn't the surrender mechanic work both ways? Wouldn't that be something, the attacker surrendering...

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#38 - 2012-04-16 20:59:24 UTC
bornaa wrote:


And what about "one little problem" that attackers are in 99% alts in alt corp that don't need to play at all on that alts to play EVE and defenders don't have that privilege so they actually cant play at all???



Citation please. Where is your number coming from?

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#39 - 2012-04-16 20:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Bel Amar wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Sounds like the price you risk paying for having poor judgement as a CEO. Either deal with these alts that never log in, or dissolve your corp and start over having learned a valuable lesson about thinking before you act.


This is doubly the case, given that war history will be available for every corp under the new system

That's pretty awesome. S***s about to get real. (...and by that I mean it's going to be a lot easier to see if other players are part of an organization that should be taken seriously and given a wide birth... or not.) Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#40 - 2012-04-16 21:02:15 UTC
bornaa wrote:


And what about "one little problem" that attackers are in 99% alts in alt corp that don't need to play at all on that alts to play EVE and defenders don't have that privilege so they actually cant play at all???


Simple: if they aren't logging in, they aren't a threat.

The 99% alt corporations are never large and thus easy to keep track off. Also, since the contract for you allies is a one-lump sum, they can choose to keep their war open as well for as long as it takes.

I guarantee that the wardeccers eventually get sick of it and will either see if they can get favorable terms for surrender, or disband their corp (since they are alts anyway). If it are their main chars though, the chance they'll take the deserter's way is very slim.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!