These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Future of Wardecs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#161 - 2013-01-18 08:15:23 UTC
Zol Interbottom wrote:
if you dont want painful combat forced upon you no matter where you are, you are playing the wrong game

however, i would support a seperate server with no PVP so the absolute carebears can see how boring this game would be without it


Um, Singularity?
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2013-01-18 08:18:31 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I am deeply saddened by this, but not at all surprised.


can't say it better.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-01-18 09:01:28 UTC
So much constructive discussion in here, so few blatant trolling- I am impressed with you, GD.

I am still waiting for the answer about the validity of Trebor's 90% claim.

Quote:
Trebor: Realistically, in the context of the game, that **** just does not happen. 90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?

(CSM Minutes, Page 69)

From the look of it I'd say that this number was just a hyperbole, but still I'd very much like to see real numbers, if those even exist.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#164 - 2013-01-18 10:03:12 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
So much constructive discussion in here, so few blatant trolling- I am impressed with you, GD.

I am still waiting for the answer about the validity of Trebor's 90% claim.

Quote:
Trebor: Realistically, in the context of the game, that **** just does not happen. 90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?

(CSM Minutes, Page 69)

From the look of it I'd say that this number was just a hyperbole, but still I'd very much like to see real numbers, if those even exist.

It's hyperbole. Comparing the wardec system to the old crimewatch system is ridiculous hyperbole too. When we get a wardec system where I can be at war without knowing about it, have no reliable way of knowing how long the war lasts and can declare a war I don't want with an accidental miss click of my mouse he might actually have a point. For now he's just trying to give weight to his opinion and hoping no one will actually stop to think about if what he says makes any sense.

I don't really see the problem anyway. Wardecs are tools and the PvP action has not been the focus of any wars I've been in. They've all been about achieving certain specific goals. Usually that is simply denying the target from accessing certain resources. Often there are just a few skirmishes or the other side backs down and gives up without a fight. some seems to see this kind of thing as a problem, but from our perspective it's a success either way. In such cases we didn't care about getting fights and certainly weren't looking for fair ones. The goal was to forcefully deny them the ability to use resources in specific systems and any fighting is at the bottom of priorities.

It just seems to me, that they've got some odd view of wardecs being all be about getting as much combat as possible. When players then use the tools for their own differing goals, they see it as a failure, since those wars weren't about getting loads of fights happening between both sides. This isn't really a problem with the system. It's more of a problem with using an awfully limited metric to measure the success of the system.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2013-01-18 11:48:01 UTC
CCP Solomon wrote:

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.


Thank you for the response! This clears things up a lot.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-01-18 11:49:33 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You miss the point, I think. I may be wrong

I read that as as "people who dont want to fight wont, so what's the actual point?"

I mean, setting aside the possibility of economic warfare because it's a) thin and b) only going to be a useful tactic against a large corp who are liable to fight back anyway.

If as massively outclassed corp is decced, what invariably happens is that they don't undock/drop to NPC corp. That's hardly spurring engagement or content, really. So a bunch of people trade in stations or play other stuff? Not exactly the stuff of dreams for either party tbh.

Well, for example, forcing your rival mining corp to dock up and stay inside while your corp grows fat in the fields is in my opinion a useful tactic. This is just one example. There are issues with old players being in NPC corps, but that discussion should be had in some other thread.


A) unnecessary in high sec because of abundance of everything You actually can mine there and B) no two mining corps will ever wardec each other because of A)

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2013-01-18 12:00:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
The problem with war decs IMO it that there is no ingame ability to set a goal or win condition.

If the aggressor set the win condition to be first to 10 kills and when this goal was achieve the war automatically ended, the defenders might be more willing to accept the war and give them a good fight.

To make such a system work the aggressor should have to put up an isk deposit. If they win they get the isk back but if they lose, the defender gets the isk. Everyone wins!

Additionally, the 24 hour waiting period before the war legal starts could be used for the defender to negotiate terms. For example there could be an in game system where the defender can request that the aggressor is unable to war dec them again for a given time period after the war ends (CONCORD enforced).

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
luZk
Fivrelde Corp
#168 - 2013-01-18 12:06:28 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
The problem with war decs IMO it that there is no ingame ability to set a goal or win condition.

If the aggressor set the win condition to be first to 10 kills and when this goal was achieve the war automatically ended, the defenders might be more willing to accept the war and give them a good fight.

To make such a system work the aggressor should have to put up an isk deposit. If they win they get the isk back but if they lose, the defender gets the isk. Everyone wins!

Additionally, the 24 hour waiting period before the war legal starts could be used for the defender to negotiate terms. For example there could be an in game system where the defender can request that the aggressor is unable to war dec them again for a given time period after the war ends (CONCORD enforced).


So by staying docked you could win a war? No.. try again.

http://i.imgur.com/1dl4DM6.jpg
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2013-01-18 12:28:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
luZk wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
The problem with war decs IMO it that there is no ingame ability to set a goal or win condition.

If the aggressor set the win condition to be first to 10 kills and when this goal was achieve the war automatically ended, the defenders might be more willing to accept the war and give them a good fight.

To make such a system work the aggressor should have to put up an isk deposit. If they win they get the isk back but if they lose, the defender gets the isk. Everyone wins!

Additionally, the 24 hour waiting period before the war legal starts could be used for the defender to negotiate terms. For example there could be an in game system where the defender can request that the aggressor is unable to war dec them again for a given time period after the war ends (CONCORD enforced).


So by staying docked you could win a war? No.. try again.


So i have to write every possible detail of an idea posted on a forum to get your approval?

What does it matter if the defenders stay docked? There would still be a time constraint on the war in addition to the proposed win condition option. The potential for the defender to win isk would incentivise them to undock and fight.

Use your brain and think before you post next time.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#170 - 2013-01-18 12:38:10 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.



There's no way to make American Football a suitable game for haemophiliacs to play.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tora Bushido
From Hisec with Love Holdings
From Hisec with Love Coalition
#171 - 2013-01-18 12:50:11 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
No one disbands a 100 man corp because of a war. And if 100 guys are to afraid to undock then it's working just fine.


Euhhh....trust me they do Twisted Even bigger alliances have been destroyed ...... Its just a matter of pushing the right buttons.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#172 - 2013-01-18 12:50:31 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.


Sure thing. I don't give a ship about PvP.
I don't want to have any interaction with any nullbears/newbbears.

There is a saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
So I never argue with nullbears. It's very good CCP might make this change about Wardec, saves me some time.

Whatever.
Tora Bushido
From Hisec with Love Holdings
From Hisec with Love Coalition
#173 - 2013-01-18 12:52:09 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
And... Sometimes it's nice to ruin shark's day by hiring some badass mercs to net them up and club them over the head. Yeah! Roll



Yeah, where are these mercs? I've been attacked, how can I find the ******* mercs right now, dammit.


Convo me in game Blink or check out the 'merc contracts' channel.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#174 - 2013-01-18 13:16:00 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
It just seems to me, that they've got some odd view of wardecs being all be about getting as much combat as possible. When players then use the tools for their own differing goals, they see it as a failure, since those wars weren't about getting loads of fights happening between both sides. This isn't really a problem with the system. It's more of a problem with using an awfully limited metric to measure the success of the system.

Sounds like ~emergent gameplay~

Better nerf it.

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 ?
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2013-01-18 13:19:17 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.


Sure thing. I don't give a ship about PvP.
I don't want to have any interaction with any nullbears/newbbears.

There is a saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
So I never argue with nullbears. It's very good CCP might make this change about Wardec, saves me some time.

What activity do you engage in Eve which is not PVP?

Good thing you read the whole thread though. There is a saying: "Get out".
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#176 - 2013-01-18 13:27:02 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


Nonsense, that's trying to please everyone (which would in turn please no one). If they don't like getting blown up they made a poor choice in game to subscribe to, and a good game doesn't REWARD poor choices.

Instead of being a hostage to anti-EVE players with 15 bucks, ccp and the game should do more to attract the right kinds of people in the 1st place, and be brave enough to let go of the "players it's ok to lose".
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2013-01-18 13:34:48 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.


The smart ones will realise that the bits of the game they do enjoy rely on people getting blown up to exist, and that occasionally the person exploding might be them.

the stupid ones will be whiny babies about it.

Catering to whiny babies will not help the future development of the game.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#178 - 2013-01-18 13:36:25 UTC
Eve should remain a cold dark and harsh place. But let's face it, wardecs have been fubard'd since they changed their stance on corp jumping.
So if CCP could actually FIX the wardec system, instead of applying a few band aids here and there, things could get back to how they should be.

Those that want to avoid wardecs, have the option of NPC corps. Those that take the risk, take the risk. That's how it should be.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#179 - 2013-01-18 13:37:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.


There are 2 types of player, those who get interfered with and do nothing and those who find a way to make you pay for your interference.

EVE Online can't be this bi-polar thing that says on the one hand "HTFU/don't fly what you can't afford to lose/cold and harsh COLD and Freaking HARSH" (and wardecs and uneven struggle/conflcit is part of that "harsh") on one hand then wraps it's (high sec) players in wool and whispers "it's going to be ok, i'll protect you" on the other hand. As a niche game company, they HAVE to make a specific choice about who they are going to cater too/include and stick to that, else you end up with this muddled lump of a game.

The world is seldom black and white, but with people being how they are, CCP does have a black and white choice: hard core niche space game or Average bland MMO with space ships.

Average tends to die off, this brand of hard core has lived 10 years.
POKER CHIP
Ferengi Trade Authority
#180 - 2013-01-18 13:55:05 UTC
+10000000000000 ccp