These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Dec System is Broken
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2014-05-31 00:05:56 UTC
Donima wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
It seems for a 2009 char you know very little.

CCP increased the cost of deccing corps and alliance a lot. Remember when it was 2 mil for your first dec, 4 for your second and 8 mil for you 3rd war.

It is now 50 mil up to 500mil depending on the number of people you have.

Educate yourself before you post something that makes you look like you know nothing.

And as well... Thanks for adding you alliance on my list of wardecs.



I'm concerned that you're not too familiar with the old war dec system. Yes war deccing a single corp use to be cheaper (which I stated) but war deccing alliances was much more expensive. I recommend you do your research my friend.


Gentlemen, we have a winner!

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Albert Madullier
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2014-05-31 10:18:44 UTC
marmite collective

the l33t station undock campers with their mid slots filled with sebo's


kinda sums up the war dec mechanics, like marmite its pointless and boring
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#63 - 2014-05-31 10:19:50 UTC
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Catalytic morphisis
Moonlit Marshmallow
No Therapy
#64 - 2014-05-31 17:10:48 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.


Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...

Actual Link free and scout free solo PvP'er
Paranoid Loyd
#65 - 2014-05-31 17:27:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Catalytic morphisis wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.


Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...


You completely missed his point.

The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
wilgotna
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2014-05-31 21:45:14 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Catalytic morphisis wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.


Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...


You completely missed his point.

The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not.

indeed the majority of the caldari militia is a prime example of what happens when players who are trained primarily in the pve mechanic attempt to pvp: gallente get free killmails
Voyager Arran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2014-06-01 01:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Voyager Arran
wilgotna wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Catalytic morphisis wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.


Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...


You completely missed his point.

The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not.

indeed the majority of the caldari militia is a prime example of what happens when players who are trained primarily in the pve mechanic attempt to pvp: gallente get free killmails


I'm sorry, it looked like there was supposed to be a dong point to that statement, but I couldn't quite make it out. Maybe try waving it a little harder?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#68 - 2014-06-01 08:26:00 UTC
Talking **** about the caldari militia is, in my experience, always warranted.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#69 - 2014-06-01 10:32:40 UTC
Catalytic morphisis wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?

My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.


Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...


Yes, because having a PvP ship in your hangar is really handy when your PvE boat is tackled in a mission pocket.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Marsan
#70 - 2014-06-01 17:05:32 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Marsan wrote:


3) Drop corp* and travel to the system with the mining agent

4) Rejoin corp, and do the agent's missions while watching local.



If you drop corp while a war is active you cannot rejoin for 7 days or till that war is over, whichever comes first. So that part of your plan does not work. That being said, you can hop in a shuttle to get to your destination.


When did they start that. I remember people poping in and out of war decs all the time. Admittedly the last dec war I actually tried to fight in was long ago. (Not counting the one that lasted a only week while work was in crunch time.) Generally I just stay in wspace or LS until it's over. That's a good change for the defender because the weirdness of people docking dropping corp, undocking, docking, joining corp and so on was annoying as hell.

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#71 - 2014-06-01 20:04:39 UTC
Marsan wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Marsan wrote:


3) Drop corp* and travel to the system with the mining agent

4) Rejoin corp, and do the agent's missions while watching local.



If you drop corp while a war is active you cannot rejoin for 7 days or till that war is over, whichever comes first. So that part of your plan does not work. That being said, you can hop in a shuttle to get to your destination.


When did they start that. I remember people poping in and out of war decs all the time. Admittedly the last dec war I actually tried to fight in was long ago. (Not counting the one that lasted a only week while work was in crunch time.) Generally I just stay in wspace or LS until it's over. That's a good change for the defender because the weirdness of people docking dropping corp, undocking, docking, joining corp and so on was annoying as hell.


It changed with security 2.0. Same time they changed the war dec mechanics, added safeties, changed bounty payouts, and changed kill right mechanics.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Canthan Rogue
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-06-02 02:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Canthan Rogue
War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.

For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?

I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?

These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.
Kaea Astridsson
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#73 - 2014-06-02 06:43:23 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:


...low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers...



Not if they're in a wardec with each other what, then whatever they're shooting is a legitimate target.

Get on Comms, or die typing.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#74 - 2014-06-02 14:16:04 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:
War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.

For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?

I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?

These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.


The reason they don't lose sec status is because war targets are legal targets. On that note, why should faction navies intervene when someone is shooting legal targets? You might not be aware of lore, but the four empires are more or less beholden to CONCORD. There's no reason for CCP to make NPCs protect players when the players can protect themselves. CONCORD exists to punish people who aggress illegally. This is necessary otherwise HiSec would become a virtually unlivable environment.

Also, people in LowSec are free to declare war and not suffer security status penalties/gateguns. But the type of people who live in LowSec don't care about sec status, generally.

War deccing, for the most part, is fine. There's some minor mechanical issues, but that's about all. There are ways to run logistics during a war. There are ways to mine and mission during a war. There are ways to fight back during a war. But all this depends on player choice and education. If you're not willing to take that step, well... I don't see why anyone should sympathize with you.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2014-06-02 14:46:03 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
But the type of people who live in LowSec don't care about sec status, generally.

True, though I wonder if the faction police chasing negative sec status players makes sense anymore from a gameplay perspective.

AFAIK (never suicide ganked in highsec personally), it doesn't effectively hinder suicide gankers' hit-and-run tactics.

OTOH, it creates a kind of barrier between lowsec and highsec communities, since lowsec PVPers find it impractical to roam in highsec while highsec PVPers are careful about their sec status.

Why not make -2.0 players fair game for all in 1.0, -2.5 fair game in 9.0 and so on and just ditch the faction police?

I'm -9.5, I'd happily poke my head in highsec from time to time for a roam, creating content for myself and others.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#76 - 2014-06-02 16:13:11 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:


I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status,


Er... you lose sec status for illegal aggression. Aggression in a war is not illegal, therefore you don't lose sec status. There is nothing "ridiculous" about this. It's pretty basic ****.


Quote:
when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion).


No, they lose sec status for illegal aggression, same as anyone else. At a mechanical level, the game doesn't distinguish between "PVPers" and "PvEers".

Quote:
Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?


Because all of those things are consequences of illegal actions, making your suggestion inherently stupid.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-06-02 17:14:02 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:
War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.

For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?

I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?

These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.


Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other."

That is a terrible idea.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Canthan Rogue
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-06-03 00:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Canthan Rogue
Xuixien wrote:
The reason they don't lose sec status is because war targets are legal targets. On that note, why should faction navies intervene when someone is shooting legal targets? You might not be aware of lore, but the four empires are more or less beholden to CONCORD. There's no reason for CCP to make NPCs protect players when the players can protect themselves. CONCORD exists to punish people who aggress illegally. This is necessary otherwise HiSec would become a virtually unlivable environment.

Complete tautological reasoning. What is legal and illegal is a matter of game design. I am quite aware that war targets are "legal" as defined by current game mechanics. What I mean is that in most sandbox games, the killing of non-combatants tends to have consequences e.g. stars in GTA, bounties in Elder Scrolls, etc. I assume the equivalent in Eve is sec status.

Xuixien wrote:
War deccing, for the most part, is fine. There's some minor mechanical issues, but that's about all. There are ways to run logistics during a war. There are ways to mine and mission during a war. There are ways to fight back during a war. But all this depends on player choice and education. If you're not willing to take that step, well... I don't see why anyone should sympathize with you.

It also depends on ISK and SP. Don't get me wrong, after playing for a year and a half, I have the ISK and PvP experience to thrive in a high sec war. New players who have to PvE in high sec to make ISK and are getting griefed by t3 fleets don't have many options.

Tengu Grib wrote:
Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other."

Fair point, but how many non-mutual legitimate rivalry high-sec wars with a parity of forces are there?
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-06-03 00:29:21 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:
the killing of non-combatants tends to have consequences
Wardec = combatant. Either you ditch wardecs altogether, or the game must assume you're a combatant. Else it really wouldn't work, trust me.


Canthan Rogue wrote:
It also depends on ISK and SP.
Nope, it depends almost exclusively on player skill. Again, either you have a competitive game that rewards player skill and knowledge, or a newbie-friendly game that becomes boring after 2 months. New players need to seek help from vets, or spend time in a vet-run corp such as E-Uni. It takes a week at most to learn how to not get killed during a highsec wardec.


Canthan Rogue wrote:
Fair point, but how many non-mutual legitimate rivalry high-sec wars with a parity of forces are there?
Who decides on 'legitimacy' and 'parity of forces'? For example, how would you classify 5 experienced pvpers deccing the whole E-Uni?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Donima
Pyromaniacs Anonymous
#80 - 2014-06-03 14:32:17 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Canthan Rogue wrote:
War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.

For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?

I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?

These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.


Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other."

That is a terrible idea.


I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible. As far as your issue with people not making a war Dec mutual. If there's actual a territorial dispute chances are both sides will be wanting to push the other out. You can easily fix your issue with adding a mechanic that allows you to purpose a mutual war to your opponent. If they agree then and only then does that war begin