These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Reduce arbitrary war decs

Author
Justin Cody
War Firm
#21 - 2014-03-26 15:07:47 UTC
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
I find it amusing that people get so worked up over this game. It's almost like I insulted your religion or something, you take it so seriously. This is just a game, and I have a hard time understanding why people get all pissy when someone puts forth an idea they don't like. If you're so sure that my idea is so stupid it would never happen, then just ignore it and I'm sure CCP will do the same. Then the thread will fall down the list and the issue goes away.

Continuing to get on here and ***** about my idea only keeps it at the top of the forum and gets more people to read it, some of whom might potentially agree with the idea and possibly affect change in that direction. Why would you want that if you want my idea to just go away? In case you hadn't noticed, the only reason this thread is still on page 1 is because people keep getting on to ***** about it. Otherwise, it would be on page 2 or 3 by now at minimum and would probably be already dead. I realize that most don't agree with me, and I certainly haven't been bumping the thread, as I only respond to some of the replies I feel merit one. It seems to me that you should just ignore ideas you think are stupid so that they just go away.

As far as people's suggestion that I just "adapt/figure it out" or whatever else, of course I will. Otherwise I would cancel my subscription. If I was only going to whine and **** about it and nothing else, I would have thread after thread about all the little things I don't like about the game, and would propose no solutions to my problems. I simply took a few minutes to post a suggestion that I think would benefit someone other than the people who spend their time ganking people leaving hi sec stations. If CCP doesn't want to do that, it's no skin off my back; that's why this is called the IDEAS forum. I will adapt and figure out ways to avoid the things I want to avoid and life will go on. We all play the game according to the rules the way they are, not the rules the way we wish them to be.


You are bad and you should feel bad.
Avarus Brightfyre
#22 - 2014-03-26 15:51:47 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:


You are bad and you should feel bad.



Nothing said here could ever make me feel bad. I don't know you, nor will I ever, thus it is impossible for your opinions to make me feel anything other than amusement that you think you can hurt my feelings with a keyboard.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-03-26 15:59:19 UTC
It seems that there have been a lot of people posting in this forum lately and then complaining about receiving criticism. Perhaps the OP of this thread and others should consider not creating threads on a public forum if they do not wish to engage in discussion about, or receive criticism, of their ideas.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#24 - 2014-03-26 16:05:00 UTC
im fishing for likes Bear

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#25 - 2014-03-26 16:16:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:

1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.

2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.

The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense.


I don't believe this is a serious post. If it is, please let me know and I'll headshot your suggestion while highlighting the fact that you really just don't understand this game mechanic.

Highsec is NOT meant to be safe.

If you are having trouble with wardecs, send me a PM and I can give you some suggestions to help you out.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#26 - 2014-03-26 16:29:34 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
im fishing for likes Bear


You caught at least one.
Avarus Brightfyre
#27 - 2014-03-26 16:32:20 UTC
Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#28 - 2014-03-26 16:43:00 UTC
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.


I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Ask us why we have the opinions we have. Present your arguments so we can explain why we disagree with them. This is an excellent way to learn.

Alternatively, you could use the forum search to examine the proposed changes to wardecs in the past, and gain an understanding of why they haven't been implemented either.

Serious question: Why do you think wardecs exist? How would your proposed changes alter the ability to remove a POS or POCO in highsec? How would they interfere with your ability to inhibit highsec missioners, industrialists, and the like. More importantly, how would they alter the ability to interfere with Nullsec logistics routes between empire and highsec?

One of the reasons you were "jumped on" is because you don't seem to understand the repercussions of your "suggestion".
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2014-03-26 16:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Thorm
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.


Oh the irony!

EDIT: Because this is the eve-o forums and someone will probably care; Oh, the unintentional self-criticism!
Katkon Darnok
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-03-26 16:51:46 UTC
I personally like the OP's suggestions.
Leoric Firesword
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2014-03-26 17:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Leoric Firesword
wardecs are fine, either join a corp that can protect you during war times or join the npc corps if you don't want to be wardecced.

This is coming from a mostly highsec player.

also, go back to wow
Severice
The Looney Bin
Fraternity.
#32 - 2014-03-26 18:04:05 UTC
High sec war definitely needs some work.

The first problem is high sec wars force players to either stop playing or play an aspect of the game they don't want to. Namely PVP ship combat.

The second issue with high sec wars is the cold reality of how they are fought. Station camping and neutral logistics in case something goes wrong, with both sides doing a lot of docking whenever the other side has the upper hand.

War decs are also broken in the opinion of the attacker. It's expensive to dec large groups and it's expensive to deck small groups. 50mil for a 1 man corp is kind of a lot, especially considering they can just drop the corp and make a new one, or just not undock.

Some degree of middle ground needs to be found.

1. Fix station games and neutral logi. Neutral logi going suspect in high sec seems like a decent fix, but the 30 neutrals in local/undock that see him go yellow typically don't do much/anything about it. A warp disruptor preventing docking/gate activation fixes station games pretty well, now all of a sudden that undock button is a lot more dangerous. A station window to look outside would be very helpful in general.

2. Allow corps that have been decked an "automatic" bail out option. They pay the decking corp the cost of the war dec and the war dec ends, they pay double and they can't be decked again for a month. Tripple, three months, and so on up to say a year. This allows the corp that declaraed the declaration to regain lost isk and to go find other targets.

3. Dropping corp during a war deck. For an individual should have a cost. Pay the offender cost of deck/members in corp isk.

4. Give people something to do other than shoot at each other. Mobile bank hacking modules, set em' up at the corporations officers/HQ and siphon Doubles corp taxes and takes EVERYTHING gives it to corp that setup the module If setup at HQ range unlimited it setup at office, players closest to that office get hit. Mobile Broker manipulator, Double brokers fees, the increase is paid to the corp. Mobile tax accountants, sales tax doubled and paid to corp. Mobile Concord Security Augmentors, disables the war dec in a system, can be shot by anyone, must be put online at certain places only 1 per system, shows up on overview system wide, doesn't disable mobile war modules. When the war ends the modules stop being effective.

5. Limits on how long a corp can be war decked. Given all the awesome power the moduels in 4 give you, they need some balance. A corp full of new players that can't defend themselves can easily fimd them selves in a situation where they can't quit the corp, cant buy their way out, and are losing large amounts of isk to what is basically a group of racketeers. War dec length is 1 week with a maximum repeat of 3 times (4 weeks total) with a 1 month cool down per week before you can dec the corp again.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#33 - 2014-03-26 18:51:33 UTC
Quote:
force players to either stop playing or play an aspect of the game they don't want to. Namely PVP ship combat.


confirming playing a PvP game and not wanting to PvP is really silly. also, they force themselves into this situation by joining a player corporation. the game nor the deccers force them to stay in a corporation. they can leave AT ANY TIME.

1) i do like the idea of point preventing docks. however, logi already inherits the weapons timer of whomever it is repping. so it cant dock unless it stops repping, or the repped ship stops shooting. so something has to stop or it cant dock. and even then it still has to wait. if ppl are not shooting suspects, they dnt care or are too afraid. its not an issue with the mechanics.

2) automatic bail out option isnt a bad idea, but id prefer if it was a ransom payment to the war deccing corp. much like a surrender.

3) dropping to an NPC corp should be nearly seemless. u instantly drop the benefits of being in a player corp for leaving the dec. however, switching to another player corp should either carry over the dec or just shouldnt be an option.

4) lol wow. i dnt know...

5) i prefer the current system. its more sandbox

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#34 - 2014-03-26 18:58:00 UTC
Severice wrote:
High sec war definitely needs some work.

The first problem is high sec wars force players to either stop playing or play an aspect of the game they don't want to. Namely PVP ship combat.


This is a problem of perception, not a problem of game mechanics. I understand the desire to play the game in an isolated mode where you get to chose how you interact with others. However, that greatly limits the sandbox playstyle. At this game's core, non-consensual interaction with others in the universe is a core feature of EvE. Wardecs are one aspect of this, which is essential for disrupting the highsec activities of others.

Severice wrote:

The second issue with high sec wars is the cold reality of how they are fought. Station camping and neutral logistics in case something goes wrong, with both sides doing a lot of docking whenever the other side has the upper hand.


Again, this isn't an issue of game mechanics, but an issue of human behavior. People are generally risk adverse (since loss has meaning in this game), and docking up is the surest way to "stay safe". Many people don't know how to fight outnumbered, don't understand the tools in the game that allow them to fight back, and don't bother exploring the available options.

Yes, wardecs interfere with your playstyle. But that is the REASON we have wardecs.

Severice wrote:

War decs are also broken in the opinion of the attacker. It's expensive to dec large groups and it's expensive to deck small groups. 50mil for a 1 man corp is kind of a lot, especially considering they can just drop the corp and make a new one, or just not undock.

Some degree of middle ground needs to be found.

1. Fix station games and neutral logi. Neutral logi going suspect in high sec seems like a decent fix, but the 30 neutrals in local/undock that see him go yellow typically don't do much/anything about it. A warp disruptor preventing docking/gate activation fixes station games pretty well, now all of a sudden that undock button is a lot more dangerous. A station window to look outside would be very helpful in general.

2. Allow corps that have been decked an "automatic" bail out option. They pay the decking corp the cost of the war dec and the war dec ends, they pay double and they can't be decked again for a month. Tripple, three months, and so on up to say a year. This allows the corp that declaraed the declaration to regain lost isk and to go find other targets.

3. Dropping corp during a war deck. For an individual should have a cost. Pay the offender cost of deck/members in corp isk.

4. Give people something to do other than shoot at each other. Mobile bank hacking modules, set em' up at the corporations officers/HQ and siphon Doubles corp taxes and takes EVERYTHING gives it to corp that setup the module If setup at HQ range unlimited it setup at office, players closest to that office get hit. Mobile Broker manipulator, Double brokers fees, the increase is paid to the corp. Mobile tax accountants, sales tax doubled and paid to corp. Mobile Concord Security Augmentors, disables the war dec in a system, can be shot by anyone, must be put online at certain places only 1 per system, shows up on overview system wide, doesn't disable mobile war modules. When the war ends the modules stop being effective.

5. Limits on how long a corp can be war decked. Given all the awesome power the moduels in 4 give you, they need some balance. A corp full of new players that can't defend themselves can easily fimd them selves in a situation where they can't quit the corp, cant buy their way out, and are losing large amounts of isk to what is basically a group of racketeers. War dec length is 1 week with a maximum repeat of 3 times (4 weeks total) with a 1 month cool down per week before you can dec the corp again.


1.) Warp disruption prevents docking or jumping? Are you out of your mind? Do you have any idea how major the impacts of this change would be? If you think station games and gate camps are bad now, you just made it significantly harder to deal with these, and you think this is a good idea?

Don't fight on stations if you don't like station games. It really is that simple, as highsec station camps are easy to avoid using insta-undocks.

2.) Buyout to avoid wardecs for a Month or perhaps a YEAR? Again, this idea is ill-formed.
a.) Many things can change within a year, and it is ridiculous to bar aggression for even a month!
b.) I can simply swap corps and dec you again and again and again, bypassing your mechanic.
c.) How can I destroy your POS and POCO with your bailout option. These should always be vulnerable to wardecs.

3.) A cost for dropping from corp has its merits.

4.) There are structures in spaces like POS's and POCO's that are "things you can shoot at". If you want more things to shoot at, then suggest more deployables that are vulnerable, and ideally valuable enough to be worth defending. That is how you get the fights moved off stations. Some of your ideas listed in this point have potential, if you can find a means to implement them. Remember that valuable structures need to provide benefits for deploy, reasons to be destroyed, and importantly, opportunity for a fight to develop.

5.) Any limit to prevent racketeers from bleeding a corp may also be used by a corp to defend itself. This is problematic, to say the least, and I highly suggest you do NOT focus on "making corps safe".

Neutral Logistics: Perhaps you are a young player, but neutral logistics has been heavily nerfed already. The current aggression system (which replaced our old crimewatch system) allows you to bring in fourth parties specifically to counter and kill those neutral logistics. IMO, the current flagging system is perfect for dealing with neutral logistics. The only broken aspect of neutral logi is in AWOX situations.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#35 - 2014-03-26 19:06:01 UTC

Look, at the end of the day, Wardecs exist to allow nonconsensual PvP in highsec.

We understand some people don't like being forced into nonconsensual PvP, but this is a major component of our game, and I have yet to hear a good reason to disallow it.


Next, if you want to "improve" the wardec situation, you need to give people a reason to fight. Yes, in many fights in this game there is a side that is outnumbered, outgunned, and/or unlikely to win a fight. That's because losses are real, and most people want to avoid losing their stuff.

There are precious few reasons to fight in highsec: POS, POCO's, entertainment, and honor are pretty much the entire list. The more you add to this list, the more fights will happen.

Some players simply don't want to be involved in ship vs ship combat. That is completely acceptable, but that doesn't give them a pass on nonconsensual PvP. They will still be subjected to the inconveniences of wardecs and suicide ganks even if they don't care for that aspect of the game. This is highly important for game balancing purposes, or else players will hide behind whatever consensual-pvp-flag CCP implemented to mitigate their risks while still heavily influencing the game.
Avarus Brightfyre
#36 - 2014-03-26 20:31:12 UTC
Guess I just can't resist nosing about on this thread. Some of the people here actually warrant a response.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.


I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Ask us why we have the opinions we have. Present your arguments so we can explain why we disagree with them. This is an excellent way to learn.

Alternatively, you could use the forum search to examine the proposed changes to wardecs in the past, and gain an understanding of why they haven't been implemented either.

Serious question: Why do you think wardecs exist? How would your proposed changes alter the ability to remove a POS or POCO in highsec? How would they interfere with your ability to inhibit highsec missioners, industrialists, and the like. More importantly, how would they alter the ability to interfere with Nullsec logistics routes between empire and highsec?

One of the reasons you were "jumped on" is because you don't seem to understand the repercussions of your "suggestion".


I have no problem receiving criticism and I'm more than willing to hear someone point out the flaws in my ideas. No one is perfect and everyone has a bad idea every now and then, and only other people can point them out. Where I stop participating is when that criticism comes in the form of "what the F is wrong with you, are you stupid?" If you can't at least pretend to respect my opinion, why should I bother respecting yours? And when the vast majority of the criticism received is THAT sort of criticism, I see no further need to put any effort into the conversation.

All of that being said, I appreciate your posts and others like it, as they seem to come from a more respectful place than many of the responses here. I've said before that I do appreciate people like you who take the time to explain in a respectful manner why you think my idea is a bad one. That, at least, warrants my time and a respect for your opinion. I am MORE than willing to participate in THAT discussion.

Anything else will be ignored.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#37 - 2014-03-26 21:40:46 UTC
Some alterations to high sec wars should be made. Fighting in high sec should not be like low or null sec, and wardecs simply remove the high from high security space.

As was posted on the last thread on this subject, I would support faction Navy responding to hostile action begun in space where such Navy forces are present. Do your risk free ganking in belts or missions.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#38 - 2014-03-26 21:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards.


You don't get anything on your killboard just for declaring war.

Quote:
1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.


What exactly is the problem with targetting non-pvp corps?

Quote:
Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.


Its a safeish area.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Some alterations to high sec wars should be made. Fighting in high sec should not be like low or null sec, and wardecs simply remove the high from high security space.


Being under wardec in hisec already IS NOT like low or nullsec at all.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Previous page12