These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Declaration counter-bribe
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#21 - 2013-06-24 02:10:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Allow the rich to be invulnerable! Let only the poor be the subject of wars!

Clearly the way to improve wars as a mechanic is to make them less functional and to favor people with money, that sure will help it become a more useful mechanic with wider appeal for more players.

This is just yet another suggestion from people who have never declared a war in their lives and who feel entitled to not be subject to PVP in highsec. I really liked the guy making the "Think of the children" argument, as if a mechanic like this would actually help new players at all, which it wouldn't because new players are poor.

It's also a fundamentally anti-pvp concept. Which is obviously something that highsec is sorely in need of, I mean it's not like it's the type of space with the lowest proportion of ship losses to PVP or anything.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#22 - 2013-06-24 04:15:45 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Allow the rich to be invulnerable! Let only the poor be the subject of wars!

As it stands, both the rich and the poor are subjects of wars, so this point is rather moot.

Even so, with the proposed system, a poor corporation has more reasons to join an alliance, which could help pay off war decs in exchange for taxation or services. It could then benefit from this safety by growing to be one of the rich, and then go on to work alone.

It cannot function the same way currently, as a poor corporation cannot maintain pvp loses, and no alliance could defend them from guerilla type warfare, that often defines War Mongering, to allow them the security to grow. Poor corporations need to keep a low profile, or not exist to survive in high sec.

Even if they don't join an alliance, at least there was an option for them to get out of a war.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Clearly the way to improve wars as a mechanic is to make them less functional and to favor people with money, that sure will help it become a more useful mechanic with wider appeal for more players.

The function of war wouldn't change. It's purpose will always remain the same, and even War Mongering will not be eliminated.

What will change is the affordability of war. It will not longer be a cheap and easy tool for griefers to get their fix. It would actually requiring serious decision making and planning to declare war, since if they fail the bid, they lose money. At the same time, those corporations who cannot afford to counter-bribe may be better off joining an alliance, or properly preparing a defence fund.

Ultimately, the important part of this system is that there's an option for Defenders to null a war, instead of being at the mercy of War Mongers only.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This is just yet another suggestion from people who have never declared a war in their lives and who feel entitled to not be subject to PVP in highsec. I really liked the guy making the "Think of the children" argument, as if a mechanic like this would actually help new players at all, which it wouldn't because new players are poor.

It's also a fundamentally anti-pvp concept. Which is obviously something that highsec is sorely in need of, I mean it's not like it's the type of space with the lowest proportion of ship losses to PVP or anything.

There is more than one way to play EVE, why does combat have to be the only way that "counts?" Many players don't want to PVP, that's why they stay in High Sec. When even that is taken away from them, they quit. This is ruining the EVE experience for many players, including CEOs who are trying to keep their players from leaving them.

The new players mentioned previously were all those within a corporation; by allowing a corporation to counter-bribe concord, they ensure that a new player be allowed to grow in a non-NPC environment, without war. So yes, this mechanic would benefit them too. Only corporations that couldn't afford to counter-bribe their Offender would continue to suffer griefers, but at least there was an option.

Everyone is biased here, but given your profile tag line, it's obvious you're one of the people who benefits from the current system. As a person who doesn't, I would like to see the playing field balanced, and not simply swung in my favour. I don't want to eliminate PVP, I just want to give Defenders a choice, the very definition of EVE Online.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-06-24 05:34:53 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
+1

I guess if you do implement this stuff, you'd also have to give the wardec-bears what they want about the ability to bail out of a corp at war. It wouldn't be quite fair if they paied 50mil, then you countered with 75mil and they recountered with 100mil and everyone bails from the targeted corp. Also on the flip side, if you do counter and they recounter, their members shouldn't be able to bail out either, just in case you give them a gooder fight than they anticipated.

agreed?



Nope. Problem is that wardecs dec the corp, not the players. If all the members leave the corp, then the corp is destroyed---they win the war. Money well spent. The system proposed gives the decced corp a reasonable way to fight without combat pilots. It expands the concept of warfare to the other areas of EVE.


If it was a real life corp this would be correct, but as it stands in this game it is not. Creating and dissolving a corp are arbitrary. In fact being in a corp is also arbitrary. Saying that the dissolution of a corp is a win for the aggressor is just an opinion based on the perception you have about what you think a wardec is supposed to be.

If there were actual consequences for leaving a corp, or actual consequences for dissolving a corp or if starting up a new corp actually had some kind of investment or benefit then maybe that would be a good incentive to stay in a dec'd corp or prevent their dissolution.

As integrated as Corps are in EVE, maybe they should have a stronger role in the universe. Maybe instead of just having stuff all over the universe for anyone to use freely, you could make your corp rent it out of stations. ie your corp has to rent an office in a station and then you could rent research and manufacturing slots, refineries or even L3/L4 mission agents out of that station. Maybe base it on the corp's standing with the faction/npc corp too. This would have a territorial affect on corps, and would/could lead to wardecs with purpose or push for alliances for purposes also. It would be like a miniature sov warfare in high sec.

But yeah, maybe that's too radical of an idea for the majority of people in high sec. It would change the game dramatically.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#24 - 2013-06-24 11:28:23 UTC
If this were to work, if the defender were to win a bid, they would have to be immune from being wardecced by that specific corp/alliance for a week. Otherwise if the defender outbids, the attacker would have a choice of simply to not up their bid, and in 24 hours when the defender wins the bid, just redec them right away.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#25 - 2013-06-24 14:49:17 UTC
@Erutpar Ambient : That depends entirely on why they want to wardec the corp in question, something that the sandbox does not address. If they are looking to disrupt activities to move in and take over mining and such themselves, then it's a win---by causing the corp to disband they cause them lose access to any POS facilities and thus severely hamper the activities of any serious indy types. Corp Disbands= WIN. If they were looking for some PvP targets, they were idiots in the first place and should have sought out targets that would give them a fight, or moved into Low/Null where they can attack without fear of Concord. In that case there is no WIN condition because the dec was pointless to start with and better solutions to their goal exist in game already. EVE sandbox philosophy supports ruining the other guys day on the basis of monetary gain. Ruining the other guys day purely for tears is actually considered griefing, and even in the cases where it isn't actively punished it is not supported. Allowing folks to jump corp to avoid an unwanted dec is allowing them to both give victory to legitimate wardecs, and a way to avoid griefing for non-combat oriented pilots.

@Hopelesshobo : In the system I propose, a dec cannot be declared until the aggressing corp pays down the entire defense fund. If the fund is built back up and the dec cancelled through a purchase in the LP store, the dec cannot be re-applied until the defense fund is again depleted fully. It becomes literally a War of ISK to keep the corp decced.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-06-24 14:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
I thought bringing pvp to hisec carebears was the whole point of wars?

Through my "War Mongering" I have probably prevented more people from unsubbing due to stagnation and not knowing about the other aspects of the game than made people quit forever by blowing them up.

If you really want to avoid a corp just leave the corp FFS, it is free and makes you totally immune to war decs!
Just leave 1 guy to watch the corp hangar and baddabing baddaboom you win! When the dec drops because the attackers wasted their isk you just rejoin and continue saving damsels and protecting yourselves from rogue asteroids.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#27 - 2013-06-24 15:07:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Vankaar Raeth
Commander Ted wrote:
I thought bringing pvp to hisec carebears was the whole point of wars?

Through my "War Mongering" I have probably prevented more people from unsubbing due to stagnation and not knowing about the other aspects of the game than made people quit forever by blowing them up.

If you really want to avoid a corp just leave the corp FFS, it is free and makes you totally immune to war decs!
Just leave 1 guy to watch the corp hangar and baddabing baddaboom you win! When the dec drops because the attackers wasted their isk you just rejoin and continue saving damsels and protecting yourselves from rogue asteroids.

Many people enjoy the industrial aspect alone, and don't care for PVP. They're able to play that style of EVE for years and years, without getting bored. Forcing a corp of people to PVP, with zero option to get out of it, is just not fair.

Gathering similar minded people into a corp makes it easier to manage them, and by giving them a singular banner to work under, gives them a purpose that they're building for the corp. Telling them they should leave the corp to immunize themselves is counterproductive to that.

Besides, what a pitiful number of isk those attackers lost! 50mil to dec the average corp is hardly anything. And yet, the Defenders have no option of nulling a war with their own isk. Thus I proposed this system.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-06-24 15:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Vankaar Raeth wrote:


Besides, what a pitiful number of isk those attackers lost! 50mil to dec the average corp is hardly anything. And yet, the Defenders have no option of nulling a war with their own isk. Thus I proposed this system.

Leaving the corp nullifies it.
Once the war is gone everyone rejoins.
This system will only be used to make attack poses in hisec even more impossible and killing a type of gameplay that many enjoy.

Besides, I think this shows just how ignorant people are to how truly easy it is to avoid people during a war even if they are in corp.

Running missions/mining? get a scout there ya go now you can dock up whenever one of these pirates gets close.
Pirates evading your mercs? Run locators you fail scrub.
Pirates to smart for even that? Pull a corp trap, have mercs dock up at a station, bait pirates, murder them all.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#29 - 2013-06-24 15:44:00 UTC
Ted, it's a sandbox. The point of war is whatever you want it to be. If you want to dec a corp because you feel they are under PvP'd, that is your right. If they make you wish you had not spent that ISK by jumping corp, that is their right.

The concept behind this idea is to expand warfare beyond the scope of the bland one sided pew pew that those currently abusing the mechanic for griefing purposes employ. One of the biggest complaints about wars is the ease of jumping corp to avoid them, a healthy part of that is because those they are declared against have no real effective way of fighting. If you allow the Indy/miner/mission running players that don't care for direct PvP to effectively fight the war with their wallets you have a greater chance that they will put ships in space and give the aggressors some targets.

That's why I suggest the Concord agents and the ability to stop a war being through the LP store. Rather than just buying off the agent, LP must be gained. Some would no doubt simply begin running missions for Concord Legal to build the LP needed proactively, but so long as the rewards to be found in that LP store are less profitable than elsewhere it will remain a secondary goal until someone starts making them use that LP. It gives the bears more options than Die defenselessly or run---which any sane person is just going to run.

It's not just risk aversion that prevents bears from engaging in PvP. It's the one sided nature of the ambush predator culture that preys on PvE pilots. Move the PvP from the area where the pirate is 100% advantaged to an area where the Indy can compete, and the PvP will happen, but the non-consent may be on the other guy now. That would be a good thing, and far more sandboxy than what we have now.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-06-24 16:18:16 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Allow the rich to be invulnerable! Let only the poor be the subject of wars!

This is why the idea is terrible. There are lots of issues with wardecs (from both sides) but attempting to balance/fix these by ramping up the isk cost makes no sense.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#31 - 2013-06-24 17:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
Ix Method wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Allow the rich to be invulnerable! Let only the poor be the subject of wars!

This is why the idea is terrible. There are lots of issues with wardecs (from both sides) but attempting to balance/fix these by ramping up the isk cost makes no sense.


Lots of long posts here so I didn't read the 2nd page in its entirety. However, I agree with the above quote: This bidding war idea would make the richest people in eve invulnerable to wars.

I have a counter-proposal: 1 round of blind bidding. The aggressors offer Concord a bribe of any size they like (minimum 50 mil as it is currently) and concord notify the defenders of the war declaration. The defenders can then offer concord the counter-bribe of any size they like (minimum 50 mil). Concord takes both bribes and looks the other way if and only if the aggressors bid the highest. In the event that both parties are cheapskates and bid 50 mil each (or happen to offer the same size non-minimum bribe by some fluke), concord takes both bribes and invites the parties to bid again.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#32 - 2013-06-24 17:13:35 UTC
This does not make the rich invulnerable, nor does it freeze out the poor.

The rich are still vunerable to other forms of PvP, including simply being ganked without a wardec. If you use the variant of requiring time spent with Concord Legal and using LP to cancel decs and make spending the isk more efficient, then it becomes as much a matter of putting in effort as it does tossing ISK at the problem.

In this case having more ISK is equivalent to having your own blob. In EVE, the most usually wins, be it the most ships on the field, or the most ISK in the wallet.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#33 - 2013-06-24 17:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vankaar Raeth
Ix Method wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Allow the rich to be invulnerable! Let only the poor be the subject of wars!

This is why the idea is terrible. There are lots of issues with wardecs (from both sides) but attempting to balance/fix these by ramping up the isk cost makes no sense.


Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Lots of long posts here so I didn't read the 2nd page in its entirety. However, I agree with the above quote: This bidding war idea would make the richest people in eve invulnerable to wars.

Repeating what I said to Vimsy:
"As it stands, both the rich and the poor are subjects of wars, so this point is rather moot.

Even so, with the proposed system, a poor corporation has more reasons to join an alliance, which could help pay off war decs in exchange for taxation or services. It could then benefit from this safety by growing to be one of the rich, and then go on to work alone.

It cannot function the same way currently, as a poor corporation cannot maintain pvp loses, and no alliance could defend them from guerilla type warfare, that often defines War Mongering, to allow them the security to grow. Poor corporations need to keep a low profile, or not exist to survive in high sec.

Even if they don't join an alliance, at least there was an option for them to get out of a war."

In addition to what I said above, the current issue is that there is no way for the Defending corp to end/null a war. I'm open to other, equally simple suggestions.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#34 - 2013-06-24 17:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vankaar Raeth
Extra post by accident.
Achuk
Jump's Reach
#35 - 2013-06-24 17:51:55 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote: I have a counter-proposal: 1 round of blind bidding. The aggressors offer Concord a bribe of any size they like (minimum 50 mil as it is currently) and concord notify the defenders of the war declaration. The defenders can then offer concord the counter-bribe of any size they like (minimum 50 mil). Concord takes both bribes and looks the other way if and only if the aggressors bid the highest. In the event that both parties are cheapskates and bid 50 mil each (or happen to offer the same size non-minimum bribe by some fluke), concord takes both bribes and invites the parties to bid again.




I like this idea - it keeps the "bidding" process short, and holds true to the idea of bribing CONCORD to look the other way. Even if you know that the CONCORD police in your sector of space were "dirty" and taking bribes, you wouldn't necessarily know how much they're being given......and the notification of a war dec happening is simply a sign that somebody else inside CONCORD still likes you enough that they're giving you forewarning that their boss has allowed the gun safeties to be altered.

By allowing a blind counter-bid attempt, you're effectively attempting to re-buy your local CONCORD agent's protection, which entirely fits with the premise put forward by the OP's in-game explanation of events. A formal bid-and-counter-bid process might be a bigger isk sink overall, but it could also lead to a targeted corp simply trying to draw out the bidding process as long as possible as a delaying tactic. If your blind counter-bid had to be received within the 24hr notice period, then any successful war dec's onset doesn't get delayed, but your target corp still gets to feel like they had a CHANCE to do something about it - perhaps soliciting funds from their members to create a bigger counter-bid in time or whatnot....or a chance for the CEO's to scam money out of their members! (Who says industrialists have to be honest, after all?)

All these ideas give an extra impetus to corp taxes in high-sec as well, as it is literally becoming protection money that your corp is skimming off your activities that can end up being used to pay the police, rather than just funding a couple of office rentals, maybe some POS fuel, etc.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-06-24 18:54:53 UTC
The problem with this is that it is completely redundant and only for those who don't already know how to avoid wars.

have a scout and the attackers will never kill you missioning or mining
hire competent mercs and they can easily kill a small group of attackers unless your a tool who hired idiots.
leave corp and rejoin when the war is over, it is free.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Lola Munijugs
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-06-24 18:59:14 UTC
As much as I appreciate the fact that war-decs exist, it is indeed disheartening to see newbies leave because of repeated losses. I've been targetted plenty of times and though I can shrug it off, I have seen my fair share of players leave the game entirely because some bored veteran's alts repeatedly greifing them.

It should be more than "OK i paid my 50 million now I get to hunt down newbiez for a week yay!" - there should be SOME other elements involved.

A lot of people get attached to their corp and it's gut wrenching to have to say "Dock up for a week" or "Let's all join NPC corp while the bad gaiz with nothing but play time, a gazillion SP and and alt accounts are after us."

I understand that EvE is a hardcore game and only badasses willing to suck it up and grow a pair should have the feeling of being a part of anything special, but the deccing system is WAY in favor of people just wishing to "BE THE VILLAIN" (<- EvE web ad.)

I don't know if any of these ideas would help, but it's good to stir up some discussion. There should be more to it, plain and simple.
Vankaar Raeth
Dark Fusion Fleet
#38 - 2013-06-24 20:31:59 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
The problem with this is that it is completely redundant and only for those who don't already know how to avoid wars.

have a scout and the attackers will never kill you missioning or mining
hire competent mercs and they can easily kill a small group of attackers unless your a tool who hired idiots.
leave corp and rejoin when the war is over, it is free.


Those are options to avoid War Targets. None of them are options to end the war. Even if they result in the end of the war, they don't directly end the war (that's up to the Offender ONLY as it stands).

As such, the proposed system is in fact not redundant, as it introduces a completely new feature; the ability to end the war on the Defendant's side.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#39 - 2013-06-24 21:37:50 UTC
Why should a defender even have the option to end a war? Wars are by their very nature a unilateral action by one party, the party having war declared on it doesn't get so say 'Sorry but we're not really interested in a war today." if it did it wouldn't be a war.

This entire idea is specifically intended to make wars less effective as a mechanic and to deter people from wanting to declare wars by making it cost-prohibitive. There's no sane justification for making a mechanic worse and less useful, particularly when doing so is directly contrary to a large number of the game's fundamental principles IE that the game is of a competitive nature, that you aren't safe anywhere and that you may be subject to aggression by other players at any time. Justifications like "Oh well there are other ways you can attack other players in highsec." and "Pleas think of the newbies" are absurd. Nobody here has proposed a way to compensate for how this mechanic would render wars functionally useless and increasing the cost of declaring war via a bidding system quite specifically benefits bigger groups with more income.

It defies the point of wars being wars. The TL;DR translation is "Let's make highsec safer for carebears and nullsec alliances". Because that's really what the game truly needs, right?
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2013-06-24 21:57:08 UTC
i dont like the current wardec system, but also not your changes.
What i would like to see would be that the concord bribes are dependent on the difference on corp members. Means if u dec a smaller corp because u think they will be easy pickings u pay the difference. Other case a 1 or 2 man corp wants to grief a bigger one, they will have to pay the difference too. And if u could even calculate it from the corp kills (pvp vs pvp corp or pvp vs pve corp) over the last month would be interesting too.