These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War dec Change proposel
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#1 - 2012-04-17 05:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: roboto212
roboto212 wrote:
New war dec mechanic that works(IMHO). This would still use the changes as proposed by CCP for inferno but removes the increase cost based on player numbers on defenders side. Also adds a new mechanic as listed. And limits the number of allies per war to 1

War dec structure attacker sets total goal value of assets destroyed to an isk value ranging from 1-x.
This number is multiplied by 1.5 and resulting number equals defenders target isk assets value to destroy. The number set by attacker is then divided by a number determined by ccp of say 5.
The surrender value is then multiplied by 20-30% again determined by ccp resulting in a bond value. This amount must be paid to concord as escrow on top of a flat war dec cost of 20mil for corps and 50mil for alliances.

How the war progresses for a defender. If the defender destroys assets equal to there target value they then may at any time chose to end the war resulting in a 24 hour timer. If the defender chose to finish the war for the week then Half the bonded would then be deposited into there corp or alliance wallet. Defender may bring in 1 Allie in to the war.

How the war progresses for the attacker. If the attacking corp destroys there target amount and defender does not destroy there target amount they receive the full bond back. If they fail to destroy there target value as well as the defender they receive half the bond back and the other half is forfeited to concord. If both parties destroy target amount then half is paid to defender and half is returned to aggressor.

In case of war being set mutual in the first 24 hours then value to be destroyed is set to infinity. And no allies can be invited to join the defender. Wars can not be set mutual after the first 24 hours.

At the end of the week if the attacker wishes to continue the war a new bond is posted equal the value of the previous on and weekly total of assets destroyed is reset.

Additionally any player leaving a corporation during the war would remain a war target for 24 hours and would be in a 24 hour stasis from rejoining the corporation or any corporation in the alliance.
As an example if A declared war on B then A would set target value of assets to be destroyed. Say 2.5bil this would set B's target value at 3.75bil and the bond at 150mil plus war dec fee of 20 or 50 mil depending on if a was a corp or alliance.

A larger example would be A sets target at 200bil. Then B would have to destroy 300bil with a bond of 12bil plus the 20 or 50 mil war dec fee.


How it would work for low sec so they would have a reason to use it there would be value of assets destroyed would only count for 40-60% of there value for goal tracking purposes.

For null sec assets destroyed would be valued at 0% for goals so that war dec tracking could be used cheaply by null sec or not with out concern for expensive war dec cost they have no need of in null.

To sum it up target goals for both sides. If defender fights they can get half the isk or end the war early and cost the attacker ISK. If the aggressor fights effectively and sets proper goals they can get there war cheaply and meet there objectives.

some people have suggested removing the surrender option and i am considering it to very large extent.


quoted with suggested changes made
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#2 - 2012-04-17 05:38:55 UTC
please give valid feed back as i would like to solidify this and move it to assembly hall.
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#3 - 2012-04-17 07:10:11 UTC  |  Edited by: roboto212
reserved just in case since i can't delete
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-04-18 23:21:12 UTC
You've violated KISS* so badly I expect metal fans that have not even heard of Eve-Online to show up at your door with baseball bats.

The more complicated you make any system the more open to abuse and malfunction you leave it. If you can't condense your idea into a simple short abstract then its likely already unworkable. A common problem in this game, see Titans, Faction Warfare, Sov Warfare, etc...

Eve-Online is a sandbox MMO. There should never be any enforced monetary control between players or player organizations. Using an NPC faction to handle a "war" escrow violates that. Surrender terms should always be determined between players themselves. If one force or the other had an overwhelming advantage, well that's just too bad for the victim. To the victor go the spoils and the right to dictate terms.

The fewer "game rules" there are the easier it is for players to generate their own dynamic content.

* Keep it Simple Stupid

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-04-20 17:39:26 UTC
Think it will close carebear loopholes, but will open up grief/pvp ones. The market Idea, in theory, is nice but will be abused. Will have it's own exploits that PvP corps will use.
Corp A decs corp B. Corp B hires Corp C to fight off corp A. Corp A and C have an understanding, so Corp C takes the money, and doesn't fight Corp A. One scenario, where unofficial cartels will form and do that. Will also farm company wardecs.
The 'can't hire mercs' restriction is useless. Friendly agressive corps can seperatly dec the same corp, to help out thier ally. They just won't go through regular channels.
I think, in my opinion, CCP is going heavy on the balance with PvPers, and abandoning PvE largely. There is always griefing, someone doesn't like your portrait or bio, they dec you. The only comfort that you get from blogs is 'If you don't want a war dec stay in the NPC corps. So bye bye small utility POS in high sec, ore doing to well on the local market. Will be more slanted to older established pew-pew players than it even is now, new accounts be aware. I think wardec system is abused by the wrong kind of players right now. There are a lot of PvPers that won't be happy till they can kick down the door of your captains quarter's, and murder you on your couch.

Guess we will have to wait and see. Commence trolling...

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#6 - 2012-04-20 21:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Rio Bravo wrote:
The only comfort that you get from blogs is 'If you don't want a war dec stay in the NPC corps. So bye bye small utility POS in high sec, ore doing to well on the local market. Will be more slanted to older established pew-pew players than it even is now, new accounts be aware. I think wardec system is abused by the wrong kind of players right now. There are a lot of PvPers that won't be happy till they can kick down the door of your captains quarter's, and murder you on your couch.

Luckily the CQ's door is magically locked then. Heh.
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
The more complicated you make any system the more open to abuse and malfunction you leave it. If you can't condense your idea into a simple short abstract then its likely already unworkable. A common problem in this game, see Titans, Faction Warfare, Sov Warfare, etc...

Titans: Immune to tons of stuff, kill almost anything.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
DODGE CITY
Keep it Hard
#7 - 2012-04-20 22:15:10 UTC
im kinda confused by this post.
your saying that the corp that does the war dec and sets a goal when said goal is met the war is over
what if the war dec'd corp hasn't got said amount of assets to destroy .is ccp going to disclose all your assets wallet balance etc..etc. to any corp so they can do the math of what your corp has to sell and buy ships for the war dec corp to meet their goal and end the war.

Troll Skill Lv3 ≡√≡
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#8 - 2012-04-20 23:33:32 UTC
DODGE CITY wrote:
im kinda confused by this post.
your saying that the corp that does the war dec and sets a goal when said goal is met the war is over
what if the war dec'd corp hasn't got said amount of assets to destroy .is ccp going to disclose all your assets wallet balance etc..etc. to any corp so they can do the math of what your corp has to sell and buy ships for the war dec corp to meet their goal and end the war.

How much to declare a wardec with unlimited objectives? Or maybe 999,999,999,999,999 isk in damages (nearly a thousand trillion).

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-04-22 19:08:21 UTC
I have a suggestion. Hope it isn't ripped apart too bad. NPC corps have infinite influence with CONCORD and so cannot be decced. To dec a player corp, hush money is paid to the cops to ignore your aggression. If you want the dynamics to follow something relating to actual practice...Player corps should be able to pay 'protection money' to the cops to avoid war decs by an aggressor.
Why not? Would be insurance type payment, an ISK sink, and be an expensive way to buy peace of mind. Of course vigilant patrolling costs more than turning a blind eye, so it would cost more than a wardec would cost. I think it's a nice idea, but if I missed some important incentive or made some feature obsolete by it, let me know. Could even have the price scale with each payment...I don't know.

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-04-22 20:09:49 UTC
Rio Bravo wrote:
I have a suggestion. Hope it isn't ripped apart too bad. NPC corps have infinite influence with CONCORD and so cannot be decced. To dec a player corp, hush money is paid to the cops to ignore your aggression. If you want the dynamics to follow something relating to actual practice...Player corps should be able to pay 'protection money' to the cops to avoid war decs by an aggressor.
Why not? Would be insurance type payment, an ISK sink, and be an expensive way to buy peace of mind. Of course vigilant patrolling costs more than turning a blind eye, so it would cost more than a wardec would cost. I think it's a nice idea, but if I missed some important incentive or made some feature obsolete by it, let me know. Could even have the price scale with each payment...I don't know.


Occured to me later...CCP wants us to use player corps for protection money payments. Bleh, how unreliable! xD lol

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Razesdarked
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-05-01 08:32:10 UTC
The new upcoming war-dec system is pretty neat, from the looks of it. There is a few things i would like to change about it though.
Atleast having a system where it was criteria based if you won or not makes it more of a game-mechanic than a sandbox-mechanic. (And personally, i like my sandbox mechanics more)
The war-dec system that has been presented has a few flaws I want to see revised though.

High-sec with its unlimited resources and faucets has no need for conflict, and therefor using war-decs by your average corp to gain some upper hand on someone else is useless.
So by extention it has no real value to your average high-sec corporation and is only used by grieving corps as a source of easy kills that don't know how to properly fight back.

I say the new war-dec system is too griefer friendly. A group of alts can disrupt a entire corps operation for a long time, without being at risk themselves. Should the defender rent mercs and things not go their way, they can just dock up and use other toons for the duration.
There are few things the defenders can do that truly impact the aggressor, which is hardly fair. The entire notion of a timed wars is in a sandbox perspective ludicrous.
To inherently fix the war mechanics and make them more impactful for more people than just your average griefer corp i think this has to be done.


A war must have a set of demands, set by the aggressor. A reason for war. The defender can adhere to them and the war will end.
Have the game force the player corporation to adhere to the demands afterwards. The demands could be a sum of isk, removing the rights to refineries or agents in an area. Tax rate on corp income, removal of corp offices.

These demands should only be capped by the actual wealth of the corp. (To prevent ridiculous terms)

A war would can not be stopped until one party surrender.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, im pretty sure they couldnt just wait a week and hope someone would invalidate their aggression, and you should not be able to ingame either.

If the aggressor wants to surrender, he would have to negotiate with the defenders corp on same grounds as the aggressor.

The cost of war should be on the aggressor, but become more evenly divided as the situation escalates
The weekly cost of war should be held by the aggressor, but that would in time give the defender the upper hand, that he could force the aggressor into submission to easily as the defender only had to stay docked and not adhere to the aggressors demands, and would in time bankrupt the corporation. Every week 10% of the cost should be transfered to the defender. So in 5 weeks the cost of war would be equal and remain that way for the rest of the war.

This would force PvP on both sides, as docking up would cost both parties ISK and would not benefit anyone. It would be an equal commitment to both sides of the fight.
Also, the mercenary card would also be more viable, because it could actually also be profitable for the defender corp if they hire the right mercs, and the mercs do their job very quickly.
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#12 - 2012-05-01 17:38:39 UTC
DODGE CITY wrote:
im kinda confused by this post.
your saying that the corp that does the war dec and sets a goal when said goal is met the war is over
what if the war dec'd corp hasn't got said amount of assets to destroy .is ccp going to disclose all your assets wallet balance etc..etc. to any corp so they can do the math of what your corp has to sell and buy ships for the war dec corp to meet their goal and end the war.

No the war decer if he hits the goal gets reimbursed half the collateral posted for the war. That is the only thing the Target goal has for the attacker.