These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Idea to wardecs and highsec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#21 - 2015-03-01 16:33:04 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
You could just head out to Null sec, Low Sec, and W-Space and find lots of people to participate in a war.

But that would mean they would shoot back.

And that's the problem, you would find someone willing to fight.


In Eve, the people who do not want a fight are often the people you most need to shoot.

That applies not only in highsec, but also in null, low and WH space.

As to the OP, while this would give corps without assets much more safety, wouldn't make it trivial for a PvP corp to just roam highsec shooting every single structure and force a bunch of wars or make corps take down their POSes? With no barrier to entry, they could attack literally everyone making highsec much more dangerous for the small corps that rely on CONCORD to defend their structures.

Not sure I support it, but an interesting idea.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-03-01 16:42:24 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:

1. wardecs become mutual corp duels


I think we need to figure out what the parameters should be for non-consensual war, not eliminate wardecs completely.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-03-01 18:13:50 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
You could just head out to Null sec, Low Sec, and W-Space and find lots of people to participate in a war.

But that would mean they would shoot back.

And that's the problem, you would find someone willing to fight.



Why do you think you should be immune to PVP?



Who said anything about being immune. Just because you declare war doesn't mean someone has to fight. Apparently that's a hard concept for you to grasp.

Why are you afraid to go to war against players who are also looking to fight?

No need to answer, you don't want a war. You just want easy targets, someone who wont fight back.

Stop hiding in hi-sec to avoid the pvp you say you want.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#24 - 2015-03-01 18:45:19 UTC
So because my corpmate legally agressed the wartarget's POCO in Perimeter, I go suspect and get shot by *anyone* in Amarr for the next two days... That sounds logical.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#25 - 2015-03-01 18:49:36 UTC
I have liked the idea of social groups for people that are too risk adverse to join into corporations. I think that is the answer rather than changing war dec mechanics.

Although, to be fair - the dec mechanics are pretty worthless.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-03-01 18:52:03 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
You could just head out to Null sec, Low Sec, and W-Space and find lots of people to participate in a war.

But that would mean they would shoot back.

And that's the problem, you would find someone willing to fight.


In Eve, the people who do not want a fight are often the people you most need to shoot.

That applies not only in highsec, but also in null, low and WH space.

As to the OP, while this would give corps without assets much more safety, wouldn't make it trivial for a PvP corp to just roam highsec shooting every single structure and force a bunch of wars or make corps take down their POSes? With no barrier to entry, they could attack literally everyone making highsec much more dangerous for the small corps that rely on CONCORD to defend their structures.

Not sure I support it, but an interesting idea.

The point was already mentioned and I'm not sure about it. The problem is the disparity in value between personal mobile assets (where the mechanic is derived from) and corp installations. I would rather like to buff the self-defense capabilities of the properties, like paying concord to help with fire power, so increasing the effort to take down a POS in highsec to a level where you only do it, if it's worth.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-03-01 19:01:27 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
So because my corpmate legally agressed the wartarget's POCO in Perimeter, I go suspect and get shot by *anyone* in Amarr for the next two days... That sounds logical.

Not exactly, if your corp CEO has set the safety for the corp to yellow, you can shoot the POCO, but your whole corp goes suspect towards every other player corp in EvE. The war is committed, if a member of another corp shoots you. To limit accidental war commitment a new personal safety setting can be introduced (leaving AWOX as a possibility). This is separate from the personal flags.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#28 - 2015-03-01 19:02:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Tipa Riot wrote:
[...] like paying concord to help with fire power[...]


> Bribes CONCORD to look the other way (wardec-fee)
> Attacks POS
> Attacker getting CONCORDOKKENed regardless

yeahh.....

edit: fixed quote, exaggerated but point should be clear.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2015-03-01 19:06:06 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
You could just head out to Null sec, Low Sec, and W-Space and find lots of people to participate in a war.

But that would mean they would shoot back.

And that's the problem, you would find someone willing to fight.



Why do you think you should be immune to PVP?



Who said anything about being immune. Just because you declare war doesn't mean someone has to fight. Apparently that's a hard concept for you to grasp.

Why are you afraid to go to war against players who are also looking to fight?

No need to answer, you don't want a war. You just want easy targets, someone who wont fight back.

Stop hiding in hi-sec to avoid the pvp you say you want.



As a member of the proud highsec industrial alliance 'Goonswarm Federation', I...
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#30 - 2015-03-02 02:03:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Danika Princip wrote:
Yes, please. My alliance has been under constant wardec for years, it'll be nice to be able to undock in Jita again, and nothing bad could possibly happen.

Let me see, you are a member of one of the most hated groups in the game and yet you complain, or at least pretend to complain about being under war dec. Go figureBig smile
Or did I completely miss the boat and being under war dec is actually a good thing?

Bright Noa wrote:
Perhaps if they want to make it so there is always a possibility of danger in high sec, they need to make it possible to run away from Concord if you're good enough. That would actually make being a small time pirate in high sec really, really fun I think, trying to dodge them... but then this isn't about that so I'll stop brain storming down that path.

Not sure I like this specific idea, in that no one should be able to run and hide from Concord.
However I would say that this type of brainstorming is exactly what we need right now.
War decs are broken for both sides and it will take a lot of ideas to figure a good balance so keep the ideas coming.
Kobaxus
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-03-02 04:51:07 UTC
The problem with wardecs is that they are often used by players to find easy targets unlikely to want to or be able to fight back. I've been on the receiving end of wardecs that have had nothing to do with personal grudges, politics, territorial disputes or the like. The aggressing corp has simply seen my corp of industrialists and miners as easy targets (and to be fair, we are). It costs an aggressor 50mil to pretty much screw up a carebear corp for a full week.

My solution? Not a new one in all honesty, but a good one nevertheless; if you can pay CONCORD to look the other way, then the defender can pay CONCORD to pay attention again. There is more to PVP than just shooting each other's ships; margin traders engage in market PVP all the time, so why can't carebear corps engage in 'Bribery PVP'?

- Aggressor corp pay 50mil and starts the 24hr timer.
- Defender has the option to pay 50mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 100mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 150mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 200mil to cancel the wardec.

And so on, until the 24hr period is over. Aggressor and defender get one opportunity per hour to pay, with the defender getting the final payment option (assuming they are logged on in that final hour). If the aggressor wins the bid, the war goes live. If the defender wins, the war is cancelled before it begins. All ISK spent would be gone from both parties (no refunds if you lost or chose not to pay further).

This gives indy and mining corps the ability to 'PVP' with the asset they are strongest in: their bank balances. The payment is still weighted in favour of the aggressor (who only pays 50mil each time) while the defender must pay escalating costs. The defender corp must weigh up the losses from paying CONCORD against the losses of a week of 'turtling up' and station spinning. Carebears then don't have the excuse of being defenseless: if they want to go about their business in peace, they have to pay through the nose for it.

The common defence made by players who want to go about indulging in non-consensual PVP is "I should be able to do what I want in the sandbox". Why are non-PVP centric players any different? We pay our subscription just the same as you. You want to mess with our game, we want you to leave us alone. It's a circular argument, and generally not a very productive one.

So give defending corps the ability to use the aspects of their play in which they are strongest (their economy), to fight aggressors who are using the element in which they are strongest (their combat prowess).

Just my two-cents.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-03-02 05:16:10 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Arden Elenduil wrote:
-1

Wars have already been nerfed into oblivion and are (still) way too easy to avoid.
They need a buff, not "yet another nerf"

This is very true! I feel the problem is that corps are a 'one size fits all' type deal. No matter what you intend for your corp - PvP, industry, exploration, PvE, social, etc... - there is only one type of corp you can create.

I would suggest that corps be separated into two tiers - those registered with Concord and those that are not.

ArrowCorps that are not registered with Concord would be unable to tax their members, own structures in space, rent offices, etc... they would be entirely relegated to social status. A way for a group of friends to communicate more easily. These severely limited corps would be immune to war decs because Concord does not recognise them as valid targets.

ArrowCorps that do want to own POCOs and POSs, tax their members, and rent offices, etc... would have to register with Concord for the right to do so. This would make them eligible to be war decced. Finally, every character who has ever been in one of these Concord registered corps would gain a new public attribute: Desertions. Concord will treat deserters like benefit frauds and charge them extra for the creation of new corporations. Every time you dodge a war dec, it will be more expensive to create your new corp! Players will be able to see how many times new applicants have deserted their previous corps and choose not to recruit flakes.



or the cost to create a new corp should be 250mil. That would solve alot of problems. To make an alliance cost a Bil so why are new corps so cheap?
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-03-02 05:18:52 UTC
Kobaxus wrote:
The problem with wardecs is that they are often used by players to find easy targets unlikely to want to or be able to fight back. I've been on the receiving end of wardecs that have had nothing to do with personal grudges, politics, territorial disputes or the like. The aggressing corp has simply seen my corp of industrialists and miners as easy targets (and to be fair, we are). It costs an aggressor 50mil to pretty much screw up a carebear corp for a full week.

My solution? Not a new one in all honesty, but a good one nevertheless; if you can pay CONCORD to look the other way, then the defender can pay CONCORD to pay attention again. There is more to PVP than just shooting each other's ships; margin traders engage in market PVP all the time, so why can't carebear corps engage in 'Bribery PVP'?

- Aggressor corp pay 50mil and starts the 24hr timer.
- Defender has the option to pay 50mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 100mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 150mil to cancel the wardec.
- Agressor gets notification that the war will not go live and can choose to pay an additional 50mil to reinstate the wardec.
- Defender has the option to pay 200mil to cancel the wardec.

And so on, until the 24hr period is over. Aggressor and defender get one opportunity per hour to pay, with the defender getting the final payment option (assuming they are logged on in that final hour). If the aggressor wins the bid, the war goes live. If the defender wins, the war is cancelled before it begins. All ISK spent would be gone from both parties (no refunds if you lost or chose not to pay further).

This gives indy and mining corps the ability to 'PVP' with the asset they are strongest in: their bank balances. The payment is still weighted in favour of the aggressor (who only pays 50mil each time) while the defender must pay escalating costs. The defender corp must weigh up the losses from paying CONCORD against the losses of a week of 'turtling up' and station spinning. Carebears then don't have the excuse of being defenseless: if they want to go about their business in peace, they have to pay through the nose for it.

The common defence made by players who want to go about indulging in non-consensual PVP is "I should be able to do what I want in the sandbox". Why are non-PVP centric players any different? We pay our subscription just the same as you. You want to mess with our game, we want you to leave us alone. It's a circular argument, and generally not a very productive one.

So give defending corps the ability to use the aspects of their play in which they are strongest (their economy), to fight aggressors who are using the element in which they are strongest (their combat prowess).

Just my two-cents.


Don't forget EVE was built around PVP and not how to make it safe for those that don't want to PVP. You should start learning how to protect yourselves and make friends to aid you.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#34 - 2015-03-02 07:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Kobaxus wrote:
The problem with wardecs is that they are often used by players to find easy targets unlikely to want to or be able to fight back. I've been on the receiving end of wardecs that have had nothing to do with personal grudges, politics, territorial disputes or the like. The aggressing corp has simply seen my corp of industrialists and miners as easy targets (and to be fair, we are). It costs an aggressor 50mil to pretty much screw up a carebear corp for a full week.

How can you be so sure? This is a sandbox and people can be motivated by all sort of strange and opaque reasons. But even if they were motivated by nothing more than just pure aggression, that is one of the purposes of wardecs in the game.

New Eden is a dark, violent sandbox. Shouldn't a player organization be able to attack another to extort ISK from them? Or just because they fancy themselves pirates and are looking to score some of your wealth? Or just because they are looking for a fight that weekend? People seem to have no problem with people roaming around outside of highsec looking for random fights, so what is different about a corp randomly deccing another hoping for a fight?

Kobaxus wrote:
My solution? Not a new one in all honesty, but a good one nevertheless; if you can pay CONCORD to look the other way, then the defender can pay CONCORD to pay attention again. There is more to PVP than just shooting each other's ships; margin traders engage in market PVP all the time, so why can't carebear corps engage in 'Bribery PVP'?

This is a terrble idea as it is just ISK-tanking. It favours richer, established players with assets and shielding them from wardecs would push wardeccers unfairly onto to new players and smaller corporations. This is exactly the opposite of what the game mechanics should be encouraging.

Besides, some of your opponents have much deeper pockets than you think. Just use that ISK of yours to hire some mercenaries as the system was designed.

Kobaxus wrote:
The common defence made by players who want to go about indulging in non-consensual PVP is "I should be able to do what I want in the sandbox". Why are non-PVP centric players any different? We pay our subscription just the same as you. You want to mess with our game, we want you to leave us alone. It's a circular argument, and generally not a very productive one.
Eve is a competitive sandbox, not a space Farmville clone. All of our actions (resource gathering, industry, PvP, etc.) affect each other which is why this is such a rich game and why your industrial activities have any meaning. You cannot "opt out" of the sandbox, especially if your actions are having a significant economic impact on the others in the game.

If you want to be left alone, you can play on the test server where non-consensual PvP is explicitly prohibited and mine and build in peace. Really though, I suggest you get some PvP friends, train some skills yourself, or hire some mercenaries to protect your operation as the game was designed instead of asking CCP to make you safer by removing more player-driven conflict from the game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Iain Cariaba
#35 - 2015-03-02 08:59:43 UTC
What OP and his ilk seem to forget is that "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason for doing something in Eve.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#36 - 2015-03-02 09:51:14 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
What OP and his ilk seem to forget is that "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason for doing something in Eve.


You expected carebears to actually give a crap about player freedom?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-03-02 10:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
Iain Cariaba wrote:
What OP and his ilk seem to forget is that "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason for doing something in Eve.

What is your counter-proposal then? Being able to agress corps by just shooting their assets creates more freedom than the existing formal wardec mechanism IMO. Or do you fear, people will wreak havoc for fun on all indu and mining corps in highsec?

I'm my own NPC alt.
Iain Cariaba
#38 - 2015-03-02 11:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Tipa Riot wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
What OP and his ilk seem to forget is that "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason for doing something in Eve.

What is your counter-proposal then? Being able to agress corps by just shooting their assets creates more freedom than the existing formal wardec mechanism IMO. Or do you fear, people will wreak havoc for fun on all indu and mining corps in highsec?

Who needs a counter proposal? The current system works fine. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's broken.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-03-02 11:36:23 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
The current system works fine.

This everythingisfinenothingeverneedsworkingonever character you seem to RP just officially jumped the shark.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2015-03-02 12:45:38 UTC
One add, as personal limited engagements can't be avoided unless you keep docked, a similar rule needs to come with corp aggression. So players in war leaving and joining another corp carry on the corp limited engagement to the new corp, effectively involving the new corp in the war.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Previous page12