These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#361 - 2013-01-28 22:29:00 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:


just 'cos they're a more visible target. you know like eve uni always has war decs etc.



But that's absurd, it's rather like saying that if the members of one corp post more messages in the forums than another corp that there should be a difference in the cost of processing ore for either corp.

The concept of size affecting the price of a wardec is meaningless IMV


no I agree they should be the same price. but if you could permawardec goonwaffe for 50M ISK a week then I think a lot of people might. it's a name and a name associated with things that lead to tearful diatribes on forums.

forums.  serious business.
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#362 - 2013-01-28 22:37:36 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:


no I agree they should be the same price. but if you could permawardec goonwaffe for 50M ISK a week then I think a lot of people might. it's a name and a name associated with things that lead to tearful diatribes on forums.


Why would you wardec them it doesn't cost anything to hit them in null?

I don't know the stats but I wonder how many wardecs Goons had when the cost was 50mil
Canthan Rogue
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#363 - 2013-01-28 22:43:59 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

In my opinion, all players should be open to wardeccing....

At the same time, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more risk imposed on high-sec aggressors...

And there is middle ground between inexpensively wardec against all corps and wardec immune corps... I don't know why people aren't willing to acknowledge this..

For example: A new corp type... the pacifist corp.... (insert some drawbacks for this type of corp)... wardecking them is completely acceptable, but anytime you attack a member of a pacifist corp (even if they are a legal target and not protected by concord), you gain a suspect flag and become a legal target for everyone. If they attack first, they gain a suspect flag too.

I'm not saying this is a good idea... I'm just saying that most wars are extremely unbalanced and result in people not fighting, and in the worse cases, not even playing. This is a BAD thing.... and wardec modifications that keep people playing, and more importantly, encourage more people to risk their ships... is EXACTLY what we want CCP and the CSM to discuss...


Yeah I agree with this. People defending war decs in its current form are not defending emergent gameplay; they are defending a specific type of emergent gameplay that favors experienced PvP corporations that have plenty of ISK and don't run non-PvP activities. When a high SP/ISK corp war decs a corp with many new players, they have plenty of opportunities to "ruin someone's day". However, this cannot be said for the defending corp. Even if they fleet up and destroy enemy ships, the loss by the aggressor corp as a fraction of their wealth is relatively small compared to the loss borne by the defender.

To encourage "more people to risk their ships", the defender corp needs more motivation to fight the war than the chance to inflict a fraction of a percentage point worth of damage on the enemy's wallet. For example one idea could be that war decs must now choose from a list of war aims (e.g. ISK destroyed, types of ship destroyed, percentage of trade/mining disrupted). If the defender plays well and these aims are not met, their standings increase and the aggressor's standing decreases (i.e. loss of street cred).
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#364 - 2013-01-28 22:54:11 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:

To encourage "more people to risk their ships", the defender corp needs more motivation to fight the war than the chance to inflict a fraction of a percentage point worth of damage on the enemy's wallet. For example one idea could be that war decs must now choose from a list of war aims (e.g. ISK destroyed, types of ship destroyed, percentage of trade/mining disrupted). If the defender plays well and these aims are not met, their standings increase and the aggressor's standing decreases (i.e. loss of street cred).


This is quite a good idea if mechanisms could be put in place to stop it being exploited by either side.

On a side note, I do sometimes wonder why players treat Eve like a second job, trying to amass huge amounts of ISK which is useless in rl and has limited application in-game (you can only fly one ship at a time). Eve is advertised as a non consensual pvp game so we all have to accept that conflict in various forms is part of the game.Why is it so important if you lose a few ships, it's not like losing your rl job and ending up on the dole.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#365 - 2013-01-28 22:54:18 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:


no I agree they should be the same price. but if you could permawardec goonwaffe for 50M ISK a week then I think a lot of people might. it's a name and a name associated with things that lead to tearful diatribes on forums.


Why would you wardec them it doesn't cost anything to hit them in null?

I don't know the stats but I wonder how many wardecs Goons had when the cost was 50mil


I've seen them in highsec icebelts, so I guess a mining corp might want to wardec them.

forums.  serious business.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#366 - 2013-01-28 23:02:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
To some extent a big issue keeps getting ignored. Most high sec wardes result in little or no fighting. The defenders just turtle: do not undock, or change corps, or play alts, or do not log in. This is unsatisfying game play for them. As the aggressor corp gets no targets for their war fee, its unsatisfying for them too (in most cases. Sometimes that is their goal).

Result: We have a game mechanic that seems absolutely necessary for the game, but most of the time when its used most of the players involved (on both sides!) are unsatisfied with the result. To me this means we need a change. Three options:

1) Accept that we got a mechanic which most of the time when its used most of the players involved are unsatisfied with the result. To me this is the definition of poor game design.

2) Change the players. That is have them do something other than turtle. If this was going to happen it would have happened years ago. We got nearly a decade of experience that tells us that most defender corps will turtle. Unless you force people to log in and undock, that will not change.

3) Change the mechanic.

1) Is poor game design, 2) is not going to happen, so we are left with option 3: Change the mechanic. The question is, to what?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Kalle Demos
Ironic Corp Name
#367 - 2013-01-28 23:02:35 UTC
LMFAO I went through all 19 pages and came across a lot of familiar names and you know why they were familiar because they play station games all day and smack talk in local.

CCP should fix that before anything else, if you engage you shouldnt be allowed to dock unless you are 250km away from the person you aggress. At least carebears have the balls to say they dont want to fight
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#368 - 2013-01-28 23:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Kalle Demos wrote:
LMFAO I went through all 19 pages and came across a lot of familiar names and you know why they were familiar because they play station games all day and smack talk in local.

CCP should fix that before anything else, if you engage you shouldnt be allowed to dock unless you are 250km away from the person you aggress. At least carebears have the balls to say they dont want to fight

I liked the idea of the comms jammer module. It jams your docking or jump request, blocking both docking and stargate jumps.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#369 - 2013-01-28 23:18:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dyvim Slorm
Kalle Demos wrote:


CCP should fix that before anything else, if you engage you shouldnt be allowed to dock unless you are 250km away from the person you aggress. At least carebears have the balls to say they dont want to fight


Definitely a good idea, though if you're applying this to the defender as well then we do need a better mechanism to see what's outside the station rather than having to use an alt. It's always struck me as a bit daft that we can't look out a station window to see who's there or access the local docking information.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#370 - 2013-01-29 00:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Sounds like ~emergent gameplay~
Better nerf it.


Isn't people hopping corps or not undocking while decced also emergent gameplay? Apparently some types of emergent gameplay are bad though..

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#371 - 2013-01-29 00:28:19 UTC
Something that crossed my mind the other day: CCP is all about long-term consequences. You can't change the name of your character because reputation should stick with you. You can't biomass toons when their sec status gets too low. There are dozens of instances where people have asked to be able to do something and CCP has responded with "no, because consequences."

And yet when it comes to war, there are no consequences. Run your mouth in chat and get a wardec? Just quit corp. A few weeks ago I saw a wartarget running incursions in a nightmare. A couple of us scrambled to grab them in between sites. They must have had a scout the next system over, because when we showed up, the target docked up...and then undocked in an NPC corp and continued running missions. It takes mere seconds to remove yourself from a war: just dock up and quit corp (assuming you don't have roles).

I don't have a balanced solution for problems like this, but something definitely needs to be done. War should be more than needing to drop corp for a week. After all, didn't CCP tell us we were paying per target with the new dec pricing structure? Does it make sense at all that we can pay to wardec 500 people and watch the corp dwindle to nothing before the war even goes live?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#372 - 2013-01-29 00:31:38 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Sounds like ~emergent gameplay~
Better nerf it.


Isn't people hopping corps or not undocking while decced also emergent gameplay? Apparently some types of emergent gameplay are bad though..

Chaining aggression flags through logi in order to shoot incursion ships was emergent gameplay, and it was so bad CCP rushed out a broken patch to stop us from doing it. So yes, some of it is apparently bad.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#373 - 2013-01-29 00:34:30 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:

Yeah I agree with this. People defending war decs in its current form are not defending emergent gameplay; they are defending a specific type of emergent gameplay that favors experienced PvP corporations that have plenty of ISK and don't run non-PvP activities. When a high SP/ISK corp war decs a corp with many new players, they have plenty of opportunities to "ruin someone's day". However, this cannot be said for the defending corp. Even if they fleet up and destroy enemy ships, the loss by the aggressor corp as a fraction of their wealth is relatively small compared to the loss borne by the defender.


Well, I know when one of my friends is spacepoor and loses a ship I help them out if I am spacerich. Any corp with well experienced dudes shouldn't have to worry about losing their t1 cruiser, right? I mean, yeah, you can't be best friends with everyone in corp, and not everyone is as generous as I am, but people are paying tax into this theoretical corp for a reason, right?

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Posta Wifda Mosta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#374 - 2013-01-29 01:35:09 UTC
All it takes is 6 million skill points in gunnery and balls of steel to Wardec 15 players with 5 or 6 million skill points in industry and science. Gratz on reaching puperty,

I'll stick to my low and nullsec roams, they actually shoot back there. O.o
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#375 - 2013-01-29 02:09:58 UTC
Posta Wifda Mosta wrote:
All it takes is 6 million skill points in gunnery and balls of steel to Wardec 15 players with 5 or 6 million skill points in industry and science. Gratz on reaching puperty,

All it takes to defend those 15 players is for two of them to have the same gunnery skills.

[quote=Posta Wifda Mosta]I'll stick to my low and nullsec roams, they actually shoot back there. O.oc
All it takes is n+1 pilots and balls of steel to fly around low/null and shoot the things that you can beat while running from those you can't. Gratz on...ahh, you get the point. Let's be honest here, Eve combat is almost always about bringing superior firepower to the fight.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#376 - 2013-01-29 02:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Karrl Tian
Vincent Athena wrote:
To some extent a big issue keeps getting ignored. Most high sec wardes result in little or no fighting.



Most highsec wardecs are aimed at people who do little or no fighting. "Hey, guys, let's war dec this big industrial alliance and when they show up in frieghters at Jita, we pop them! If they show up with combat ships, we stay docked/play station games and go afk for 12 hours. What, all their haulers are in NPC corps? That's lame, CCP, lame, lame, LAME!"

FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

All it takes to defend those 15 players is for two of them to have the same gunnery skills.



No, all it takes is for all 15 of those players to work together to either fight back or evade the threat. Most war dec'ers will drop if they can't pick off lone noobs in mission/mining ships.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#377 - 2013-01-29 07:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Canthan Rogue wrote:
War decs should cost more than ISK. To a high level griefer corp, ISK is no object and they can perma-war dec whoever they like.

This is just completely untrue.

I'm actually in what you'd refer to as a "high level griefer corp" and I'm pretty much constantly broke. I'm not sure where the idea that highsec PVP corps have some magical infinite flow of money comes from, but I assure you it doesn't exist, if it did all of highsec would be perpetually at war.

Additionally you might be interested to know that once upon a time, before the 2500% increase in the cost of wars there was such a thing as a "low level griefer corp" where players with low skillpoints got in frigates and declared war on other low SP players and they actually undocked and shot eachother. I know this because at one time my corp had about 8 million SP between 6 people and the biggest thing anyone could fly was a Vexor and we had great fun fighting highsec wars, learning to fly, getting chased into station by bigger, meaner fish etc.

It makes me sad to know that newbies starting EVE now won't have the same opportunity to get involved in PVP that I did. And that's a shame because it used to make me happy to see a newbie screaming bloody murder in local because another newbie in a rifter blew up his mining barge, but that's just not a type of gameplay that's viable for newbies anymore because of the price tag.

The ideal highsec for me is one where there's someone other than me willing to shoot at you. If you're in a retriever doing a corp mining op with your three buddies during your first ever war the person who gets paid by that guy whose rock you wouldn't stop mining yesterday that warps in to kill you should be some guy in a rupture, not me in a legion.

The highsec PVP foodchain at the moment feels like it consists entirely of grass and apex predators with virtually nothing in between.

There are also a bunch of extremely ignorant people who've clearly never actually even considered the position of the aggressor, let alone actually been the aggressor in a war that seem to think that placing greater costs and/or restrictions on the nature of war will somehow help alleviate this problem. It won't, when the war changes in escalation happened what we saw was a near total end to wars being declared by people other than established dedicated wardec corps, and the awful mechanics that inferno brought resulted in the highsec PVP community becoming even more cliquey with even some larger, but less hardcore groups falling to bits, it's only now after the fixes to the horribly broken cost scaling formula, addition of a fee for allies and the end of decshield that new groups have started to form again.

Increased cost and harsher penalties on aggressors just results in the only people willing to be aggressors being us guys with guardians, offgrid boosters and faction battleships and the guys who camp trade hubs in tornadoes.

If you want people in highsec to undock to fight in wars the defenders need to be fighting someone they can plausibly beat so they don't just pucker up and hide and over the last year the changes to mechanics have forced the kind of people who generalist highsec groups can plausibly beat to cease to exist entirely.

The mechanics need to support the existence of highsec PVP corps at all skill/wealth/SP levels and not create the kind of exclusive environment that they do at the present.
Canthan Rogue
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#378 - 2013-01-29 08:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Canthan Rogue
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Canthan Rogue wrote:
War decs should cost more than ISK. To a high level griefer corp, ISK is no object and they can perma-war dec whoever they like.

This is just completely untrue.

I'm actually in what you'd refer to as a "high level griefer corp" and I'm pretty much constantly broke. I'm not sure where the idea that highsec PVP corps have some magical infinite flow of money comes from, but I assure you it doesn't exist, if it did all of highsec would be perpetually at war.

Additionally you might be interested to know that once upon a time, before the 2500% increase in the cost of wars there was such a thing as a "low level griefer corp" where players with low skillpoints got in frigates and declared war on other low SP players and they actually undocked and shot eachother. I know this because at one time my corp had about 8 million SP between 6 people and the biggest thing anyone could fly was a Vexor and we had great fun fighting highsec wars, learning to fly, getting chased into station by bigger, meaner fish etc.

It makes me sad to know that newbies starting EVE now won't have the same opportunity to get involved in PVP that I did. And that's a shame because it used to make me happy to see a newbie screaming bloody murder in local because another newbie in a rifter blew up his mining barge, but that's just not a type of gameplay that's viable for newbies anymore because of the price tag.

The ideal highsec for me is one where there's someone other than me willing to shoot at you. If you're in a retriever doing a corp mining op with your three buddies during your first ever war the person who gets paid by that guy whose rock you wouldn't stop mining yesterday that warps in to kill you should be some guy in a rupture, not me in a legion.

The highsec PVP foodchain at the moment feels like it consists entirely of grass and apex predators with virtually nothing in between.

There are also a bunch of extremely ignorant people who've clearly never actually even considered the position of the aggressor, let alone actually been the aggressor in a war that seem to think that placing greater costs and/or restrictions on the nature of war will somehow help alleviate this problem. It won't, when the war changes in escalation happened what we saw was a near total end to wars being declared by people other than established dedicated wardec corps, and the awful mechanics that inferno brought resulted in the highsec PVP community becoming even more cliquey with even some larger, but less hardcore groups falling to bits, it's only now after the fixes to the horribly broken cost scaling formula, addition of a fee for allies and the end of decshield that new groups have started to form again.

Increased cost and harsher penalties on aggressors just results in the only people willing to be aggressors being us guys with out guardians, offgrid boosters and faction battleships and the guys who camp trade hubs in tornadoes.

If you want people in highsec to undock to fight in wars the defenders need to be fighting someone they can plausibly beat so they don't just pucker up and hide and over the last year the changes to mechanics have forced the kind of people who generalist highsec groups can plausibly beat to cease to exist entirely.

The mechanics need to support the existence of highsec PVP corps at all skill/wealth/SP levels and not create the kind of exclusive environment that they do at the present.


I'm not saying all griefer corps are flowing with cash but the fact is that perma war decs are possible for just 1 plex a week which is not much at all if you consider Eve to be a serious hobby. For example, one particular corp has war dec'ed another corp (on which I can neither confirm nor deny my membership status) for the past 6 months.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, I did not mean to say that war decs should cost *more* ISK, I said they should cost *more than* ISK. ISK is a soft constraint that can be circumvented through in game wealth and plex, favoring veteran players and players with more cash. Being a fairly important mechanic, I think war decs should be subject to some hard constraints. This is why I think the aggressor should be forced acquire "causes of war" in order to war dec, and to choose war objectives, whose fulfillment determines who "won" the war, and they should suffer standing penalties as they are scorned by the rest of the galaxy if they don't achieve these objectives.

Basically I'd like to see emergent gameplay of the Deus Ex and Elder Scrolls variety where you can bend the rules if you're prepared to face the potential consequences. I feel like war decs in its current form is emergent gameplay of the Quake 3 Deathmatch variety where veteran griefers support it because they have all the power ups and the best guns.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2013-01-29 10:59:03 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:

I'm not saying all griefer corps are flowing with cash but the fact is that perma war decs are possible for just 1 plex a week which is not much at all if you consider Eve to be a serious hobby. For example, one particular corp has war dec'ed another corp (on which I can neither confirm nor deny my membership status) for the past 6 months.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, I did not mean to say that war decs should cost *more* ISK, I said they should cost *more than* ISK. ISK is a soft constraint that can be circumvented through in game wealth and plex, favoring veteran players and players with more cash. Being a fairly important mechanic, I think war decs should be subject to some hard constraints. This is why I think the aggressor should be forced acquire "causes of war" in order to war dec, and to choose war objectives, whose fulfillment determines who "won" the war, and they should suffer standing penalties as they are scorned by the rest of the galaxy if they don't achieve these objectives.

Basically I'd like to see emergent gameplay of the Deus Ex and Elder Scrolls variety where you can bend the rules if you're prepared to face the potential consequences. I feel like war decs in its current form is emergent gameplay of the Quake 3 Deathmatch variety where veteran griefers support it because they have all the power ups and the best guns.


Your idea does nothing to encourage actual fighting, just limits it. It sounds a lot like you do not approve of warfare as a valid career choice and want to make it even harder as it already is, especially for the new guys. I don't remember Quake having the option of being in NPC corporation, gaining immunity to wardecs and continuing to do industrial/market PVP from.

If the current costs favour the veterans, the simple solution is to lower the costs.

Here is my counterproposal: create a wardec tutorial for newbies. Make it extremely cheap and easy for newbies to challenge the fat industrialists and afk miners who are ruining the markets in the highsec systems designed for the newbies to grow in. Perhaps this would encourage the next generation of capsuleers to take active part in the highsec wars and get a better grasp of the game mechanics involved.
Posta Wifda Mosta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#380 - 2013-01-29 19:14:50 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Posta Wifda Mosta wrote:
All it takes is 6 million skill points in gunnery and balls of steel to Wardec 15 players with 5 or 6 million skill points in industry and science. Gratz on reaching puperty,

All it takes to defend those 15 players is for two of them to have the same gunnery skills.

[quote=Posta Wifda Mosta]I'll stick to my low and nullsec roams, they actually shoot back there. O.oc
All it takes is n+1 pilots and balls of steel to fly around low/null and shoot the things that you can beat while running from those you can't. Gratz on...ahh, you get the point. Let's be honest here, Eve combat is almost always about bringing superior firepower to the fight.


Actually if you don't have the skills you don't get away once you get pointed in lowsec, where as someone with high skills in navigation and afterburner can easily get away from a low to medium skilled player in navigation and acceleration control. Try to keep a person with level 5 skills in the pertinent areas pointed when you are running skill level 3 or or 4. Here is what happens, you lose the point or you run your cap dry because you lack the skills to actually compete with the person. When someone running level 5 Acceleration control, level 5 Navigation, level 5 Afterburner among other things is in combat with someone running level 3 or 4 there is no real contest. If you don't realize that, you are blind.

Picking on a group of players who chose to play the game in an indy capacity is lame in my opinion, different story if it is a corp that actually wronged you or a corp that can actually field a competitive pvp fleet but looking at a corp history then looking at the players and seeing like 3 months of game time then wardecing them is childish.