These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Flawed Wardecing-System

Author
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#1 - 2012-11-07 14:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Destriouth Hollow
Every Alliance to ever declare a war can currently be trapped in an infinite cycle, affecting their membership, wars and recruitment. If it happens to you you have no way of ending it.

My Alliance and therefore my Corporation has now an infinite war against Dec Shield.
In addition to that we will forever have wars with all copies of Dec Shield and all Alliances/Corps that temporarily joined Dec Shield.
Even if we have not a single war we want to continue. And noone of them has to even pay a single ISK to continue this.

Declaring a legit war on an Alliance that attked our POS and was double our size brought us:
- Every future war will cost us intense amounts of ISK (as much as Dec Shield decides)
- None of our corps can ever join annother alliance
- We will never be able to recruit annother Corporation again
- We will declare war on as many Alliances/Corporations as Dec Shield decides.

All of this will continue over the next couple years and all we can do is abondoning all our corps and never declare a war again or wait for CCP to fix the issue.
And it can happen to any Alliance/Corporation that decides to declare a war on anyone. If your target decides to join Dec Shield you are screwed.

I hereby thank The Zerg Overmind for both finding these flaws and showing everybody how they can be abused in a smart way.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=156437
The basic reason for these problems can easily be pinned down. Several of the current states do not behave in a usefull way.
If you are interested in the reasons and the solution read the following post:
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#2 - 2012-11-07 14:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Destriouth Hollow
a) Agressive
Taking the english defintion of the word Agressive an agressive individum is one that seeks confrontation.
If someone doesn't want confrontation anymore and just wants to become passive, he can under no circumstances be called agressive. Someone who does not want the conflict is just NOT aggressive.
However, after the war has been declared mutual the former agressor is forced to stay agressive, even if they don't want to agress anybody.

b) Mutual
The definition of mutual is that both parties have the same interest in a situation. Both factions should have the same rights and disadvantages. In the current mechanics however the agressor stays the aggressive party in a mutual conflict. One party has the right to de-mutual the war while the other has not.

c) Declaring a war
Declaring a war against annother strong Alliance/Corp is always an important step to do. It's something you have to think through carefully because it has a lot of meaning and it should. That makes it a laughable feature to let disliked alliances/corps declare your wars for you. Players that usually have no positive link to yourself decide who you will declare wars on. They take one of the most important decisions an alliance-leader can make and do it for him. By simply moving arround some corps from alliance to alliance they force u to declare wars on corporations/alliances you would never want to fight. And your corp is the aggressor! (:

All problems with that system happen only because those 3 principles are not fullfilled.
A agressor should always be allowed to somehow take his aggression back when he ceases to feel aggressive and a mutual conflict should always imply fair rights for both parties. Noone but yourself should decide who you declare war onto.

Easy Solutions:
1) If the former agressor wants to take back his war-declaration in a mutual war the former defender should become the agressor if he is the only one who wants to continue the fight. He should have to pay the bills and everything else since they want to fight players that do not want war.
2) If an alliance wants to recruit a corp that has an ongoing war the current mechanics just force the former aggressor auto-declare war on an unknown alliance. Basicly you start to agress a party u do not even want to agress. For a whole week!
Either the former aggressor should be allowed to take back his aggression or the recruiting alliance needs to declare war in order to take in the corporation that has a war. The cherry on that cake is that u have to declare war on every corp that joins into the target-alliance is well. That part about it is just sad (:

What bothers me is how this great and complex game that has arround 10 years developement going on can have one of the most important features in such a horrible state. I can't beleave that so many intelligent minds didn't see all this coming.

I hope that the war-system will be fixed soon.

regards
Destriouth Hollow
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal
#3 - 2012-11-07 23:06:58 UTC
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
#4 - 2012-11-08 00:34:23 UTC
Would it potentially fix the system of the defender had to pay 1/2 of the wardec fee the aggressor would to keep a war mutual?

This allows the defender to continue to attack the aggressor and try to force a surrender, but also keeps it from the current mess.

I do applaud Zerg for doing this, awesome how wars are a virus now. Not a fun game mechanic, but cool to see happen nonetheless.

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!

Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#5 - 2012-11-09 17:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Destriouth Hollow
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:
Would it potentially fix the system of the defender had to pay 1/2 of the wardec fee the aggressor would to keep a war mutual?.

This would still make a mutual cost the same amount if both parties play half. They could just send each other half of the ISK instead. The "mutual"-mechanic is intended to allow people to fight each other whereever they want if they both decide that this is what they want. It's a feature for people that are friends or respect each other. There is no need for a concord fee.

Burseg Sardaukar wrote:

This allows the defender to continue to attack the aggressor and try to force a surrender, but also keeps it from the current mess.

If you want to agress your former attker u can just attk him back and force him to a surrender. After the agressor de-mutualed the former defender could maybe skip the next concord-fee for their "deserved revenge" But this is rather a nice gimmik as an important part of the system.