These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

WAR! UH! What is it good for?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-04-24 11:31:19 UTC
War stops the highsec corps becoming bloated ISK machines and is pretty darn good for the economy. Blown up ship? More mineral demand. This is good.

People have different reasons for War. Griefing is one but tbh I truely think its serperates the men from the boys. My main (well more like alt these days) is in a fairly good highsec/lowsec alliance and we have been grief dec'd a fair few times, each time we have stepped up to the plate, and actively gone out looking for a fight. Yes it's annoying for the week or so but at the same time it pulls us all together.

Then there are legitimate differences of opinion and revenge decs, and finally for the lulz decs, in a past life the small corp I was in was approached by a similar sized mainly bear corp who wanted the pvp practice and just a week of fun. Decided we could do with the break and damn it was one of the most enjoyable wars. Mainly because it was a mutual agreement and we'd ship up or down making the fights down to the wire.

So yes it has a use in my eyes.

I lied :o
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#22 - 2012-04-24 12:06:17 UTC
I DECLARE WARS BECAUSE I'AM A SPACE TYRAN WITH A CEO ROLE AND I WANT TO DEC YOU YOU AND YOU TOO






(it's valid too)

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Chav Queen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-04-24 13:11:04 UTC
War is quite simply a tool that allows you to shoot people and stay withen the law.
There are a thousand different reasons why people go to war.
The most talked about is the high sec extortion, but wars have been caused by simply smacking in local or undercutting somone on the market.. somone salvaging a mission ect ect. ect.
I even went to the fan fest with some friends once and at the breakfast table were some very noisy Germans who were playing music from a mobile phone and making alot of noise while we were hung over.
Needless to say my friends war decced their corp when they got home.
So yes war decs are very useful.
Yandrel
Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd
#24 - 2012-04-24 13:23:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Yandrel
gfldex wrote:
Yandrel wrote:

Fred, I'm not advocating removing war decs altogether. I'm saying they need to change, because they're not fulfilling the purpose they're designed for, which is ships blowing up.


May I ask where you got that knowledge from?

Simple reasoning.

Ships blowing up = demand for new ships = keeps the economy moving and the money flowing.

When money stops flowing, economies collapse. Look at what happened in 2008-Now in America.

Look at what happened when Incursion launched. Lots of ships exploding, lots of ships being bought. EVE had a healthy economy.

My point is that war CURRENTLY doesn't encourage things going boom. War encourages waiting it out. Every war policy I've seen in industrial corps/alliances says the same thing: Dock up, don't give them kills, wait it out.

What war needs is a way to definitively end a war on the DEFENDER'S terms. Right now, it's all Offense. All that encourages is bullying.

I want a war to mean something. I want a reason for BOTH sides to commit forces. In Null sec and FW, if people dock up, you lose your moon, your station, possibly even your system. In High sec, if people dock up, they lose NOTHING.

And again, I don't see Inferno changing anything.
Yandrel
Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd
#25 - 2012-04-24 13:24:52 UTC
I mean, when I'm considering having my PVP alt join Red vs Blue just so I can have some actual PVP... and I'm already in an alliance that is AT WAR...

THERE IS SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH WARS!
Fireflyb1
Walden 2.0
#26 - 2012-04-24 13:40:20 UTC
Yandrel wrote:
Serious question. What is War good for?

Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for?

Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition.

The only thing is that wars in EVE usually end with one side paying off the other. And even then, that doesn't always work.

The 1-week enforced peace coming in Inferno will help mitigate that somewhat, true.

Time to admit something here: My corp is currently involved in a war that has dragged on for at least a month. I will not say with who. I'm not here to complain or demand that this be ended.

My question is why is this allowed in the first place?

The war has seen underhanded tactics from the attacking corp like dropping and joining their corp at strategic points, trying to catch us off guard, or get us CONCORDed (including one incident where a person dropped corp mid-battle. He was destroyed, no one got CONCORDed). Meanwhile, BOTH sides have used the docking-up tactic, which is not fun for either side.

A representative for the attacking corp has even said: "We intend on getting paid or disbanding your alliance. Every dec we do ends with either or. It's your guys' choice which one."

We've payed the corp menacing us. It hasn't worked.
We've massed troops to face them. It hasn't worked.

War is supposed to encourage people to blow each other up. It doesn't. The best tactics, the ones that cost the least, are unfun activities, like docking up, or running. And if a game becomes unfun, what's the point of playing?

The changes come Inferno don't seem like they will change the viability of these tactics, or give better alternatives.

Why?

Because, as Massively said in one of its articles on the changes coming in Inferno, "The main thing that I think needs to be fixed with the war system is the complete lack of victory conditions for either side, particularly for the defender."

The problem with War, specifically in EVE, but sometimes in real life too, there's no way to win. In EVE, this means it turns into a gank-fest, which is unfun for the target, or docking up for the duration of the war, which is unfun for both sides.

To go back to Massively's words, again, "The ideal war system would be one that forces the attackers to commit and has clear victory conditions. It should make small corps engaging large entities riskier and encourage people to fight a war rather than dock up for a week."

With the information I've seen, I don't have faith that war will be made fun come Inferno.

So I ask again, when the best tactic in a war is to log off and go play Star Trek Online...

War: What is it good for?


Stop b1tching and move to low or nullsec, where people WANT to shoot you.

Joking aside, .. stop b1tching and move to low or nullsec :P
Yandrel
Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd
#27 - 2012-04-24 14:21:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Yandrel
Additionally, according to this CCP Devblog, quote: "Seeing how many of you blow each other up and how often you do so is an important metric for seeing how much fun everyone is having."

Ships going boom = Good economy
Ships going boom = People having fun

High Sec Wars != Ships going boom (See Eve Uni's Wartime Standard Operating Procedure for an example)

ergo

High Sec Wars != Good economy
High Sec Wars != People having fun
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#28 - 2012-04-24 15:14:48 UTC
Things I used highsec warfare for as an industrialist:

  • Power grab in an alliance (we hired mercs to show the leadership was inept and take over. Instead the alliance fell apart.)
  • Evicting industrial corporations that were competing for the same belts as us. They lost half their members and moved 15 jumps away after losing their POS.

    • I've been griefed, but I also found wardecs very useful in accomplishing my goals. It's a great tool of social engineering and area denial that gives you an advantage over your competition.

    Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
    FloppieTheBanjoClown
    Arcana Imperii Ltd.
    #29 - 2012-04-24 15:16:23 UTC
    Yandrel wrote:
    High Sec Wars != Ships going boom


    Wrong.

    Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
    Haulie Berry
    #30 - 2012-04-24 15:52:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
    Yandrel wrote:
    Five Thirty wrote:
    The solution is to stop paying ransoms, deny lols, give no tears, and basically turtle up until they go away.

    Exactly the problem. It's not fun FOR EITHER SIDE.



    As you obviously have an agenda in favor of only one of said sides, I can't help but wonder if the other side actually appointed you as their advocate, or if you assumed that role unbidden.
    Marsan
    #31 - 2012-04-24 16:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsan
    Katie Frost wrote:

    - Two null sec alliances fighting in 0.0 decide to cut the high-sec supply of their enemy's ships and mods = war declaration.

    Everything else is PvP practice for wannabe combat pilots.


    Last time I checked most NS folks use alts in neutral corps for logistics in HS. Every war I'd been in has been annoying. Either the leadership told us to station up and/or lock down our wormhole, we spent days chasing smack talkers who were too scared to fight with less than 1 to 3 odds, or we had to deal with neutral repers who tended to out numbered the war targets....


    In any event what wars need is a way for the defender to win the war. As it stands now an attacker can declare war sit in station all day and only come out when someone is mining or hauling. He can leave corp and go mission or the like. If a war target appears he can dock up and rejoin corp. What needs to happen is that the attacker needs have to anchor a POS or something like that in HS. If the defender destroys it the war is over. The defender gets the attackers deposit, and the attacker can't redec for a period of time (weeks). Ideally this should be an anchorable object like a customs office. Moderately hard to reinforce, and allowing the attacker(in terms of the war, not the structure) to set the time it comes out of reinforcement. Also neutral repers need to be concorded, and changing corps while in a war should take 24 hours.

    Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
    Eryn Velasquez
    #32 - 2012-04-24 16:31:19 UTC
    Marsan wrote:
    Last time I checked most NS folks use alts in neutral corps for logistics in HS. Every war I'd been in has been annoying. Either the leadership told us to station up and/or lock down our wormhole, we spent days chasing smack talkers who were too scared to fight with less than 1 to 3 odds, or we had to deal with neutral repers who tended to out numbered the war targets....


    Totally agree.

    Marsan wrote:
    In any event what wars need is a way for the defender to win the war. As it stands now an attacker can declare war sit in station all day and only come out when someone is mining or hauling. He can leave corp and go mission or the like. If a war target appears he can dock up and rejoin corp. What needs to happen is that the attacker needs have to anchor a POS or something like that in HS. If the defender destroys it the war is over. The defender gets the attackers deposit, and the attacker can't redec for a period of time (weeks). Ideally this should be an anchorable object like a customs office. Moderately hard to reinforce, and allowing the attacker(in terms of the war, not the structure) to set the time it comes out of reinforcement. Also neutral repers need to be concorded, and changing corps while in a war should take 24 hours.


    One additional thing - joining a corp during war should have a random timer set between 10 to 30 minutes after the corp accepts the application.

    _“A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau _
    Yandrel
    Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd
    #33 - 2012-04-24 18:54:18 UTC
    Exactly. CCP said in their War panel at Fanfest that they wanted to make it easier for war to backfire on the agressor. However, there's still nothing stopping the agressors from counter-turtling, again, making it unfun.

    You're right, Haulie Berry. I'm heavily biased on one side. Mainly because I have trouble putting myself in the mindset of a bully.
    Ewo Deveraux
    Care Bear Stare IP
    #34 - 2012-04-24 19:52:03 UTC
    Well, with the introduction of Dust514, we all better get used to wars. But CCP needs to think of ways to make wars profitable, or the consequences of pacifism so unbearable, so that players will feel compelled to get sucked into them, just like in real life.

    I could think of two situations where wars could be fun.

    1) Wars to prevent catastrophy: Like in Settlers of Cataan: Cities and Knights, you have to cooperate or the barbarian hoards invade. I imagine NPC hoards would be interesting, where if you collaborate you can fend them off, if not your system becomes unsafe. Players would have to act in the place of CONCORD. It could force you to organize larger region-wide governance structures. Now that would be interesting. The larger your militia, the less you get rocked by invaders.

    2) Wars of conquest: You could grant bonuses to corps that dominate territory rewarding cooperation and warfare. For example, maybe no player-owned stations or planetary extraction unless you dominate the system. Or extraction bonuses to those who dominate the system. The non-linear rewards for conquering territory would stimulate land grabs and generate automatic pvp warfare that is rational, organized, and profitable, not just grudges or griefing.

    Whether people fight to repel invaders or to extract riches, either way wars force people to collaborate, organize, and form governments. It is collaboration, not explosions, that are fun.

    They will not just collaborate to start wars, but collaborate to enforce the peace as well. You could set it up as a prisoner's dilemma game, where everyone profits if no one fights, but if someone breaks the peace, you have to win or you will be destroyed and impoverished. You could control security without concord, but simply by shifting the rewards or disincentives of warfare.


    Either way, the reason war is fun is not because you blow stuff up, but because it is fun to collaborate on missions. But if there is no reward for warfare, it sure does seem like griefing, which everyone hates because it is so irrational and sociopathic.
    Ewo Deveraux
    Care Bear Stare IP
    #35 - 2012-04-24 19:56:31 UTC
    In short, CCP needs to set up a rewards structure that will pull normal, rational people (non-bullies and griefers) into combat.
    Zyress
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #36 - 2012-04-24 20:02:06 UTC
    Ravnik wrote:
    Absolutely nothing!


    Say it again...
    Lyric Lahnder
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #37 - 2012-04-24 21:02:32 UTC
    We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time.

    I support the idea of having defenders find ways to end the war, for instance if they do pay off a corp they cant be war decced for a while. It should scale though. Let say your money you ransom from another corp scales to the next time you can war dec them. The more isk, the longer time from when you can war dec them again. But also the down side of that is if the war ends at the end of war declaration and the defender doesn't pay up, you cant war dec them for the indicated time period..

    Then it becomes more of a gamble. You really have to know you can hurt enough of your war target entity for your war dec to be worth it. In this situation you really got to be able to twist the knife to the point where the members are screaming for leadership to pay the damn bill and get it over with.

    With this mechanic you would also have to be able to declare war longer then one week, corps can stay docked up for a week easy and not have it crimp there style isk wise.

    Corp a decs Corp b: Month long war, ransom is 10 Billion isk, 3 month retainer, 30% value of ransom payed to initiate.

    Corp b: still standing at the end of war declaration, hasn't agree to pay.

    Corp a: Cannot declare war again on that corp for 3 months.

    Had corp B agreed to pay, they would have had a month of there lives back, and the war decers would have left with there initial investment plus 7 billion in profit.

    The bigger question is how to determine the cost of the ransom how it scales with time and the cost of the war for the corp initiating it. If the cost of war decs is based off of what your trying to extort the other corp for and not there membership size war deccing becomes more like playing texas hold em. Will they hold or fold? How well you can you read the man across the table?

    Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.com I Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers.
    Five Thirty
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #38 - 2012-04-24 21:21:25 UTC
    Lyric Lahnder wrote:
    We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time.


    This is where you've totally missed the mark.

    Corps that don't want to fight simply don't undock.


    I had a war just last month that basically involved the WT corp camping outside the station I was in, then later us camping outside the station they were in.

    Guess how many ships got blown up?



    ZERO.
    Haulie Berry
    #39 - 2012-04-24 21:29:58 UTC
    Five Thirty wrote:
    Lyric Lahnder wrote:
    We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time.


    This is where you've totally missed the mark.

    Corps that don't want to fight simply don't undock.


    I had a war just last month that basically involved the WT corp camping outside the station I was in, then later us camping outside the station they were in.

    Guess how many ships got blown up?



    ZERO.




    You say that like it's not okay. Really, simply being disruptive can be every bit as financially damaging as destroying things.
    Five Thirty
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #40 - 2012-04-24 21:57:09 UTC
    Haulie Berry wrote:

    You say that like it's not okay. Really, simply being disruptive can be every bit as financially damaging as destroying things.


    It's not even financially disruptive... out of corp alts to haul things and mine materials. Research / Invention / Manufacturing still go on as usual.

    The system is just lame.

    Make both sides duke it out with no safe zones or something, but the way it is now is just stupid station games by both sides.
    Previous page123Next page