These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Dec Ideas for 2012
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#21 - 2012-01-01 06:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Honestly, High-sec WarDecs could use a little discouraging. They're stupidly common and annoying griefer ploys at the moment.

I'm not really discouraging WarDecs however, I'm simply suggesting a manner in which they could become more professional and limiting access to those willing to purchase a Charter. Effectively, a Corporation willing to purchase all features of a War Charter, has the right to bring war to another Corporation in a relentless fashion, where one that doesn't have the ISK or interest is limited to less effective means of warfare, or none at all.

This prioritizes War to the highest bidder and makes Mercenary Corps more meaningful, while downplaying griefer corps effectiveness, and limiting instaWarDec Corps from popping up randomly for the most part.

As a non-transferrable Charter which costs ISK to aquire and upgrade to more effective levels, a War Charter would become less appealing to those who want to make a griefer corp to Dec someone for a week or so and disband. This means they either man-up and solidify their position, or find other ways to satisfy their needs.

The fact that actually declaring War is an additional cost, only increases the likelihood of professional Dec Corps, while decreasing the overall number of WarDecs. Do what you want in Lowsec or Null, make it mutual like Red Vs. Blue, or garner a professional reputation in Highsec; even if the reputation is as a gank squad waging war on Newbs.

The fact that Charters may bring in the ability to use Smartbombs, and various other collateral damage modules in Highsec without Concord interference only makes it more interesting. Might be hard to manage that one though. Even if the basic idea might be "as long as targets are on grid it's okay," and it would be very exploitable without measures taken to prevent abuse.

Perhaps collateral damage is met with a fine, and Concord disables the offenders ship without destroying it. It's probably not particularly workable, unless the modules are non-damaging like ECM Bursts. Even that can be abused.

Nice thought anyway.

edit: Alternative is that the WarDec Charter determines the rules of engagement for both parties, and includes the ability for the WarDec'd party to bring in an equal number of Corporations to assist it. Each of those Corporations would of course need War Charters, though the WarDec'd party may not.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#22 - 2012-01-01 06:48:23 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Honestly, High-sec WarDecs could use a little discouraging. They're stupidly common and annoying griefer ploys at the moment.

I'm not really discouraging WarDecs however, I'm simply suggesting a manner in which they could become more professional and limiting access to those willing to purchase a Charter. Effectively, a Corporation willing to purchase all features of a War Charter, has the right to bring war to another Corporation in a relentless fashion, where one that doesn't have the ISK or interest is limited to less effective means of warfare, or none at all.

This prioritizes War to the highest bidder and makes Mercenary Corps more meaningful, while downplaying griefer corps effectiveness, and limiting instaWarDec Corps from popping up randomly for the most part.

As a non-transferrable Charter which costs ISK to aquire and upgrade to more effective levels, a War Charter would become less appealing to those who want to make a griefer corp to Dec someone for a week or so and disband. This means they either man-up and solidify their position, or find other ways to satisfy their needs.

The fact that actually declaring War is an additional cost, only increases the likelihood of professional Dec Corps, while decreasing the overall number of WarDecs. Do what you want in Lowsec or Null, make it mutual like Red Vs. Blue, or garner a professional reputation in Highsec; even if the reputation is as a gank squad waging war on Newbs.

The fact that Charters may bring in the ability to use Smartbombs, and various other collateral damage modules in Highsec without Concord interference only makes it more interesting. Might be hard to manage that one though. Even if the basic idea might be "as long as targets are on grid it's okay," and it would be very exploitable without measures taken to prevent abuse.

Perhaps collateral damage is met with a fine, and Concord disables the offenders ship without destroying it. It's probably not particularly workable, unless the modules are non-damaging like ECM Bursts. Even that can be abused.

Nice thought anyway.

edit: Alternative is that the WarDec Charter determines the rules of engagement for both parties, and includes the ability for the WarDec'd party to bring in an equal number of Corporations to assist it. Each of those Corporations would of course need War Charters, though the WarDec'd party may not.


Well no other wardecs are needed except highsec, because pirates are NBSI and in null everybody is NBSI.

You could've said in another words that you want Eve to become carebear game, while selling with a premise of pvp game. that will not do.

And on top of it, do you know how little wardec accomplishes? With wardec shredding available declaring war is virtually pointless.
Endeavour Starfleet
#23 - 2012-01-01 06:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
It dosent matter what the definition is. The moment you force a player to remained wardec in high security space is the day EVE will take a huge turn for the worse. It will absolutely ruin grouping and recruitment.

The dec shield suck. A BS fix for a broken system. But forcing anyone to remain in a war is bad.

Besides again the idea of war deccing just for kills is bs. Hisec wars need to be a complicated process that involves more than a noob losing his ship.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#24 - 2012-01-01 06:54:26 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
-1 For at once stating that you are wardecing members.

Are you out of your frakking mind? That will cause income for CCP to drop like a rock when massive amounts of people just give up. Moving to another or alt corp is a valid mechanic to prevent wardecing from becoming a way to circumvent concord against an individual.

The rest I wont even bother to read.

Edit: The real fix for wardecs requires that said wardec not be a means to attack blindly in hisec but force the defending team to fight if they want to keep their isk incomes. And that penalties result for the attacking team if they lose the war.

In essence. Wars in hisec to make the area the same as low or nullsec will simply not work. However there are many ways to remove the benefit of hisec economically while a war is in motion. I would support a massive tax that goes into a pool that goes to the victor of the war. So that income made in hisec will go to the victor of the war. That way people may actually come for good fights if they arent going to be ganked halfway there.


That gives me an idea: Make it so War has to be declared in a Region, with additional costs per Region added to the initial WarDec, or for changes to the Region in which a WarDec is applied should a target move locations. As it's paid on a daily basis, with my example, this makes sense as the WarDeccing party would simply have to pay an additional fee for the next period as the WarDec'd party moves.Lowsec and Nullsec would be exempt from this of course.

Bottom line: WarDecs in Highsec shouldn't be frivolous. No country would reasonably allow such behaviour within their borders. In the case of EVE, podpilots recieve some leniency with regard to this as a result of their status, but that doesn't mean absolute chaos would be deemed acceptable.

To the OP: Not sure about your WarDec members idea. Certainly, if those members were Directors, CEOs, or held other important roles; they should not be allowed to run in such a fashion. Minor players can do what they like.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Endeavour Starfleet
#25 - 2012-01-01 07:04:00 UTC
Region based is a start but most will simply go mission and mine in another region until its over.

The idea should be that you dont get paid until you go fight. You can mission or incursion or whatever all you like but you dont get said funds unless you win the complicated war system.

The war should be about points and deeds. For instance. A successful 1 min tackle should net you points. The enemy can choose to fight to not only kill you or drive your tackle away but the kill results in the points he earned transferred to you. So that if you tackle someone you better make sure his friends are offline. Also tackle results in you becoming open to what I will call a war assist which is what I call paying a fee that will turn the tackler open for all to attack but wont grant a killmail during that agress time. He can pay the fee and maybe someone will shoot the tackler off for free (At risk of course)

That was just a random idea. The point is this is not a gank and spank war type. Its a completely new system where you can win without firing a shot by being VERY VERY crafty. Or do it the old fashioned way if the enemy decides its time for a good fight.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#26 - 2012-01-01 07:27:22 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Region based is a start but most will simply go mission and mine in another region until its over.

The idea should be that you dont get paid until you go fight. You can mission or incursion or whatever all you like but you dont get said funds unless you win the complicated war system.

The war should be about points and deeds. For instance. A successful 1 min tackle should net you points. The enemy can choose to fight to not only kill you or drive your tackle away but the kill results in the points he earned transferred to you. So that if you tackle someone you better make sure his friends are offline. Also tackle results in you becoming open to what I will call a war assist which is what I call paying a fee that will turn the tackler open for all to attack but wont grant a killmail during that agress time. He can pay the fee and maybe someone will shoot the tackler off for free (At risk of course)

That was just a random idea. The point is this is not a gank and spank war type. Its a completely new system where you can win without firing a shot by being VERY VERY crafty. Or do it the old fashioned way if the enemy decides its time for a good fight.


Based on that, I would have to suggest that it be a system where points are aquired for causing enemy ships to dock up while in system. Thus a WarDec "Team" can be in system, and for each member there points are accrued per ~5 min tick based on the number of members on the opposing team that are currently docked and active in the same system. For each Logoff of the opposing team per tick, you could also award points.

This might encourage both sides to actually fight.

The issue is that it may be difficult to accrue any rewards with a WarDec as the teams must actually earn during thaat period, and there would be no way to apply the system to mining income or the like provided no sales were made.

Points systems also take a lot of the fun inherent in PvP battles out of the equation and remove immersion a great deal. I think-overall-this would ruin Highsec PvP.

I will point out as an aside, that PvP is intended to be different in Highsec, Lowsec, and Null. Without that difference, all space might as weell have the same security level, and let it be a "free-for-all."

Also, figured a way to allow Smartbombs in Highsec WarDecs while removing the potential for abuse: If either side causes Collateral damage with such devices, destroying a non-target ship, pod, or whatnot; then all Corporations on that side lose the ammendment to their Charter which allows for the use of that device. Until the War is over, they cannot reapply for that particular ammendment.

This means that, at ~250 Million a pop, it would be unprofitable to abuse such collateral damage devices for the sake of lulz on innocent bystanders. The fact they can and may be used, might also encourage people to move aside when a war is going on. Obviously non-damage to stations and the like wouldn't apply; though the Charter wouldn't prevent the station from firing on the offenders.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#27 - 2012-01-01 07:37:46 UTC
Nestara Aldent wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
...


Well no other wardecs are needed except highsec, because pirates are NBSI and in null everybody is NBSI.

You could've said in another words that you want Eve to become carebear game, while selling with a premise of pvp game. that will not do.

And on top of it, do you know how little wardec accomplishes? With wardec shredding available declaring war is virtually pointless.



With Dec Shields being impossible, with suggested plan, given no amount of WarDecs will increase the cost of a WarDec, and further suggestion that moving Alliances have no effect on a given WarDec by this model, all that remains is Protection Charters.

That can be dealt with simply by utilizing a bidding system: The target of a WarDec that holds a Protection Charter, on top of the nominal fee, is required to meet or exceed the amount required to place the WarDec by the aggressor. In this way, the SCC gets their ISK, and it becomes a war of attrition. The aggressor may press a WarDec daily to no cost to his own Corporation, while the protected party must pay that cost daily until they relent and allow the WarDec to take place.

A little harsh maybe, but it achieves the desired effect while allowing the target corporation to buy time to move assets and prepare for war.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Endeavour Starfleet
#28 - 2012-01-01 07:38:00 UTC
The issue is if you make it forced PVP. They will simply use tricks to get out of the war or members will go to an alt corp.

Hisec is different from low and nullsec. Combat that forces a player to risk his ship will mean that a wardec system will never function right.

Instead it should be a game of chess. Being able to think ahead and maneuver to entrap and divide instead of gank.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#29 - 2012-01-01 07:53:18 UTC
It's EVE; Let there be PvP.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#30 - 2012-01-01 10:01:12 UTC
McOboe wrote:
Since this topic heading seems to allow for everyone to offer up an idea, here's mine. What are the biggests beefs with the current war-dec system? Wars against industrial corps? Wars against industrial corps seem to be justified, as it is a war over ISK/resources/production etc. Wars against newbies? There's really no accepted justification for that, and we all know that PvPers that can't hack low & null-sec are the biggest abusers of the war-dec system against newbies. Presumably, the solution would be one in which industrials/POS owners can still be targeted, while newbies are partially shielded (obviously not completely shielded- they need to learn the risks associate with EVE).


Newbies already have protection from Wardecs. They're called NPC Corps.

Forming a Corp is your way of indicating that you're ready to put on your big boy pants and step out into the world. And thus you are vulnerable to WarDecs.

tl;dr There are no wars against Newbies. Newbies who leave Newbie Corps have renounced their Newbie status.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
ShipToaster
#31 - 2012-01-01 11:59:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ShipToaster
Arguments against some in https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=587842#post587842 and the post after it.

Counter payments are a method to avoid PvP, essentially they introduce a consensual PvP flag and this is not good. If a group wants to pay money to defer a war then make sure the amount is significant and increases rapidly or pay it to the deccing group instead.

Points system is always a bad idea and has been ever since it was realised that working out what will give or remove points will be really hard to code and will be constantly argued over. Any points system requires a war framework to support it. Consider this as an example why. My goal in one war is to force a lot of miners out of my favourite system, my goal in a second war is to interdict access to a region, neither of these examples requires me to actually kill anyone as just the threat of violence suits my needs: you cannot code a points system that takes into account what I have decided is the goal of my war.

Fighting in regions: bad idea as all it does is make wars cost more.

.
Evalore Valley
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-01-01 15:15:04 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The issue is if you make it forced PVP. They will simply use tricks to get out of the war or members will go to an alt corp.

Hisec is different from low and nullsec. Combat that forces a player to risk his ship will mean that a wardec system will never function right.

Instead it should be a game of chess. Being able to think ahead and maneuver to entrap and divide instead of gank.


Maybe it's just me but a wardec system which forces combat would seem like a like a perfectly working system. The Issue here is player corporations deliberately trying to avoid conflict while maintaining all the benefits.

If you Nestara or Endeavour can post an idea which solves this that would be beneficial to this discussion. War declarations are by design meant to promote conflict between corporations and the members within - You seem to suggest that it is perfectly fine for players to exist in and out of a player corporation completely separate from the actual corporation whenever it suits them with no risk, if a player wants to be free from wardecs the option exists for them to remain safely within an NPC corporation.
Endeavour Starfleet
#33 - 2012-01-01 23:11:23 UTC
I will not support going back to the old system of just making it an open PVP free for all because you pay a fee. That idea is broken and ways around it will always be made.

And such a system defeats the idea of grouping. Stay in an NPC corp? That goes against the entire spirit of multiplayer. The wardec system was meant to promote combat between corps and was quickly changed into a tool of griefers and those who enjoy picking on the weak and casual.

Look where it got us. CCP having to temporally allow dec shields and other methods to avoid forced combat in hisec. CCP is not going to simply not allow dec shields anymore and go back to the old days. I suggest something new. Tho if its the same old I doubt they will lift the support for dec shielding anytime soon.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#34 - 2012-01-01 23:33:12 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I will not support going back to the old system of just making it an open PVP free for all because you pay a fee. That idea is broken and ways around it will always be made.

And such a system defeats the idea of grouping. Stay in an NPC corp? That goes against the entire spirit of multiplayer. The wardec system was meant to promote combat between corps and was quickly changed into a tool of griefers and those who enjoy picking on the weak and casual.

Look where it got us. CCP having to temporally allow dec shields and other methods to avoid forced combat in hisec. CCP is not going to simply not allow dec shields anymore and go back to the old days. I suggest something new. Tho if its the same old I doubt they will lift the support for dec shielding anytime soon.


Multiplayer PvP in a MMO PvP Game? Oh, Dear God NOOOOOOO!!!!!

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#35 - 2012-01-01 23:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nestara Aldent
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I will not support going back to the old system of just making it an open PVP free for all because you pay a fee. That idea is broken and ways around it will always be made.

And such a system defeats the idea of grouping. Stay in an NPC corp? That goes against the entire spirit of multiplayer. The wardec system was meant to promote combat between corps and was quickly changed into a tool of griefers and those who enjoy picking on the weak and casual.

Look where it got us. CCP having to temporally allow dec shields and other methods to avoid forced combat in hisec. CCP is not going to simply not allow dec shields anymore and go back to the old days. I suggest something new. Tho if its the same old I doubt they will lift the support for dec shielding anytime soon.


This is hardcore oldschool sandbox game with open world pvp which isn't made to be "fair". If you don't like it, just unsub and leave, there are other mmos that cater to your playstyle.

Its a game, somebody wins and somebody loses. It's the nature of the game that it's not "fair" and "equal" even if balanced, because no game is, simply by virtue that some players are more proficient at it. Making stupid games where everybody wins is what's killing MMOs today.
Endeavour Starfleet
#36 - 2012-01-02 00:06:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
If you don't want to accept that the old system doing doing nothing to help CCP in the long run have at it. It was discouraging group play, driving people from the game, and encouraging crap that ruined the perception of the game. and CCP agreed thus allowed dec shielding.

I am not seeing a compelling reason for CCP to spend development funds or effort on wardecs at this time. Especially when ideas go as far as saying a wardec should be towards the members themselves (dear geez! Shocked ) I was just brainstoming with my idea as a valid way to have the competitive aspect without the member driving away bs of the old system.

Hisec is not low or nullsec. It wont go back to being a Concord free gank funhouse. Accept that.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#37 - 2012-01-02 00:29:18 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
If you don't want to accept that the old system doing doing nothing to help CCP in the long run have at it. It was discouraging group play, driving people from the game, and encouraging crap that ruined the perception of the game. and CCP agreed thus allowed dec shielding.

I am not seeing a compelling reason for CCP to spend development funds or effort on wardecs at this time. Especially when ideas go as far as saying a wardec should be towards the members themselves (dear geez! Shocked ) I was just brainstoming with my idea as a valid way to have the competitive aspect without the member driving away bs of the old system.

Hisec is not low or nullsec. It wont go back to being a Concord free gank funhouse. Accept that.


Wardecs following members when they leave corp is a terrible idea.

We don't want Hisec to be Concord free; We have lowsec for that.


Eve is a PvP MMO Sandbox, which means I should be able to (with some effort) knock down whatever sandcastle you want to build (unless you can defend it, which also takes effort) and visa versa. If you don't want to build a sandcastle, that's fine. Stay in the NPC corp and pay the 11% tax on your mission rewards (and all we can do is occasionally kick sand in your face [Suicide Gank/Ninja Loot]). But once you put on your big boy pants and join a PC corp, you have firmly announced that you're ready to play in the sandbox as a full member, and must accept that if you pick a fight (or someone decides to pick a fight with you) you might loose something. That could be a POS, could be some ships you didn't want to lose, could just be a week of your time spent in station, or a rapid decline in membership (and thus tax revenue).

Hisec is not Low or Nullsec. Hisec gives you 24 hours warning before unlimited aggression is allowed. Hisec gives you Concord protection when that isn't allowed yet. But this is Eve. Nowhere can be allowed to be conflict free, and that's what allowing a Dec Shield does.

If you don't want PvP content, what in the world are you doing here? Eve's fame (and all of its advertising) rests entirely on its PvP content.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Endeavour Starfleet
#38 - 2012-01-02 00:48:03 UTC
That is not reason enough to remove dec shielding.

Because in the end it is just " I paiz monies so I can kill yer sandcastle" Instead of "I declared war to show I and my group are better than you"

It is virtually no different from lowsec and nullsec and as long as that "kick down the sandcastle" mindset remains war decs will remain broken and few will want to actually fight.

You can want your dreamworld of targets in hisec but it just was not happening. People got tired of losing crap so they started making corps with alts so members can move to avoid the grief war and then dec shields which CCP now allows.

See the issue? You cant force people to stay and fight in the old system without causing many to leave the game and causing a big mess. (I thus will never support it) You can remove dec shields but it simply wont work. they will move to an alt corp.

So what dev time they can give to "fix" the old system will yield virtually nothing worthwhile. The whole damn system needs to be changed to where being crafty is king not ganking ships.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#39 - 2012-01-02 01:14:12 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
That is not reason enough to remove dec shielding.

Because in the end it is just " I paiz monies so I can kill yer sandcastle" Instead of "I declared war to show I and my group are better than you"

It is virtually no different from lowsec and nullsec and as long as that "kick down the sandcastle" mindset remains war decs will remain broken and few will want to actually fight.

You can want your dreamworld of targets in hisec but it just was not happening. People got tired of losing crap so they started making corps with alts so members can move to avoid the grief war and then dec shields which CCP now allows.

See the issue? You cant force people to stay and fight in the old system without causing many to leave the game and causing a big mess. (I thus will never support it) You can remove dec shields but it simply wont work. they will move to an alt corp.

So what dev time they can give to "fix" the old system will yield virtually nothing worthwhile. The whole damn system needs to be changed to where being crafty is king not ganking ships.


I don't want people to be forced to stay and fight. But there is a tangible loss in morale from having to hop to an alt corp every time someone wardecs. Repeat it enough and a corp disbands. I get some benefit from that (or I wouldn't dec them in the first place), so I'm fine with people dropping corp to avoid wardecs.

The Decshield also makes POSes unkillable in hisec. That means that if you're on a moon that I want, I'm 100% SOL. There is literally nothing I can do to take it from you, and it requires 0 effort on your part. That's bad mechanics.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Evalore Valley
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-01-02 01:15:39 UTC
the passing of the torch: the future of eve

devblog

CCP Unifex:

...

Finally, we will be concentrating on those features we already have in the game
after 8 years of development. Yes, we will be iterating (it‘s not a dirty word)
on those features which need some polish, balance, fixes and general love. The
releases throughout 2012 will be an extension of the type of release we had with
Crucible with the addition of a theme to help us scope and tie the work into a
really compelling and coherent package. The first theme is going to be War
and everyone is getting very excited about it.

...

Since WAR is going to be the 1st theme CCP plans to work on 2012 it seems perfectly reasonable to look into redeveloping the war declaration system to promote conflict. Now it's really just semantics but war is fought by players within player corporations Endeavour - So yes all members should be a viable war target and a system which directly targets this core idea seems at least to myself like a good idea to build from.

Judging from your post Endeavour it seems clear to me that you want a system where players can exist in a corporation without any risk of attack by war declarations - One suggestion I've seen is by McOboe to create a "lite"-corp which operates like an NPC corp being immune to war declarations but has a number of restrictions placed on it such as being unable to establish a player owned station.

Returning back to my original idea I mentioned that a war dec should follow a player who decides to leave corporation for at least 1 week - perhaps that is too long and could be lowered to several days in connection with an added penalty such as an ISK fee + large security hit as a repercussion.

For a real life comparison consider a soldier within the military they can't just instantly stop fighting in the middle of a war - they would need to handin notice to their commanding officers - to just refuse to fight and go AWOL would likely risk them being court martialed and thrown into a military jail. If a game mechanic can be created to mirror this in EVE perhaps this will help against the problem with corp jumpers.

Now earlier in this thread McOboe did mention the idea of allowing a soldier to surrender - perhaps this idea can be further developed in addition to any new war mechanics.

I think many agree that the current war declaration system is not perfect and apparently CCP agrees. The system can be improved which is why CCP is looking into WAR as just one of the key areas for change 2012.