These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Current war dec mechanics and why they are broken

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-07-17 17:40:30 UTC
Filling out the War Bond idea

Basic ideas
1) No wardec fees.
2) Post a War Bond of any size.
3) Aggressor must post an equivalent bond.
4) War does not end until one side surrenders.
i) Surrender can be actively chosen.
ii) Surrender can be an alternative condition (number of members).
5) The victor (the side which does not surrender) gains both War Bonds.

Considering some cases.
2 -> Honeytrap does not require rich players. In fact there will be multiple small industrial corporations where the real members flee and alts remain doing nothing (including not surrendering).
4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive.
4 ii -> Your description hopes that CCP will give you account information by auto surrendering based on accounts not members. I strongly doubt they will ever provide that information intentionally. For this reason I changed the condition to members.
4 ii -> A one man corp auto surrenders. How does this effect war decs against the one man industrial corporation with POSes.
5 -> Defenders would have to setup a second bond to protect themselves against a second war declaration. Methods of timing those second war declarations might cause issues. Declare with a permawar dummy corp and then declare with your weekend warriors.

Unaddressed Issues
NPC Corporations are still unaddressed with this wardec idea.
Incentives are provided to make a war painful, but not to encourage fighting.

Summary
I like how the war bond is determined by the players. Unfortunately it seems this would lead to many unending ghost wars, and still not encourage either fighting or activity. With significant work a similar idea might resolve some of these issues.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2013-07-19 15:14:49 UTC
Kadl wrote:

4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive.


You mean people war-deccing a wardec corp? That's a fairly special case, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that a wardec corp will always want other war dec corps to wardec it. Having a very low bond will make it much cheaper for their targets to hire mercenaries to counter-attack, for instance.

OTOH, if they're happy for counter-decs to continue, then great; that's essentially equivalent to the current mutual wardec as neither side has any wish to surrender to the other. I don't really see what the problem is there.



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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-07-19 15:18:28 UTC
Kadl wrote:

Summary
I like how the war bond is determined by the players. Unfortunately it seems this would lead to many unending ghost wars, and still not encourage either fighting or activity. With significant work a similar idea might resolve some of these issues.


the War Bond was really a throwaway idea meant to illustrate the point that any mechanism which is strong enough to make it advantageous to fight will be resisted by people who don't like being wardecced. I think it does encourage fighting in that if you don't fight back or if you abandon the corp you forfeit the bond, and if you don't surrender, you have a permanent wardec.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-07-22 17:17:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kadl wrote:

4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive.


You mean people war-deccing a wardec corp? That's a fairly special case, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that a wardec corp will always want other war dec corps to wardec it. Having a very low bond will make it much cheaper for their targets to hire mercenaries to counter-attack, for instance.

OTOH, if they're happy for counter-decs to continue, then great; that's essentially equivalent to the current mutual wardec as neither side has any wish to surrender to the other. I don't really see what the problem is there.


I was not clear in this problem. There are many corporations in High Sec who just want lots of targets on the Jita undock. Easy kills are the only thing which matters. There are a number of other corps who will maintain a wardec for spite. My evidence is the originally setup ally system which CCP decided was broken.

Malcanis wrote:
the War Bond was really a throwaway idea meant to illustrate the point that any mechanism which is strong enough to make it advantageous to fight will be resisted by people who don't like being wardecced. I think it does encourage fighting in that if you don't fight back or if you abandon the corp you forfeit the bond, and if you don't surrender, you have a permanent wardec.


I understand that it is a throwaway idea for the sake of the general argument. I disagree with your argument, and believe that many more people would be happy with a wardec system which involved more actual fighting. I am working on an actual proposal so that it can be torn apart, and perhaps improved upon.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2013-07-24 08:18:11 UTC
I'm looking forward to it. Short of wardecs forcibly ejecting people from stations, I don't see how a wardec can make them fight. All you can do is make it expensive to refuse to fight (stick) and advantageous to fight (carrot). The warbond concept definitely does both of things in principle, although I'll cheerfully concede that they could be done better.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Red Templar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-08-11 01:35:41 UTC
War Bond idea is interesting, but has flaws as i understand it. If i have to put war bond for each wardec, and corp receives 100 wardecs, its possible to bankrupt the corporation just by declaring multiple wars on them.

As for incentive to fight back.
You could implement some "weighting" mechanic, that would evaluate military prowess of defender against attacker. For example number of members, sum of skill points in combat areas. Then compare defenders vs attackers and see who gets how much depending on who wins. And if attacer loses, he pays reparation fee based on this.
So if small corps successfully defends, it gets more the money if their target was much larger in numbers, or their members more experienced.

Overall there is many ways to make it interesting for players to fight back, or to hire someone to join defend them.
Its just a matter of difficulty to implement and possible drawbacks comparing to benefits. Its hard to find perfect balance.

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]
Previous page12