These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec limitation

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andrew Gernander
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-10-02 18:06:15 UTC
The problem is that high sec is missing a formal "limited war" mechanic.

We already have Cold War mechanics in high sec. Ganking, market manipulation, scamming, bumping, talking smack in local, mission baiting, stealing exploration sites, eating all the ice in the ice field, AWOX, corp theft, forum warrioring, etc. Anything that makes the target's life difficult without an actual declaration of war.

We already have Conventional War mechanics in high sec. I don't like you, so I'm paying CONCORD a fee to rain genocide on you for a week with the option to keep going and even unarmed ships are fair game. I can do this as much as I want as long as I can afford it and that's where the abuse comes in as ISK flows like water for the larger groups.

We are missing a Limited War mechanic where an entity is challenging another entity for a regional asset in high sec but are not interested in anything else.

Something like...

1: Right click on an anchored object in overview
2: Select "declare war over"
3: Pay CONCORD a fee based on the value of the anchored object * sphere of influence (grid, system, constellation).
4: After warm-up period, aggressor and defender legally have at it within the sphere of influence and nowhere else.
5: If the defender never shows, the aggressor is able to claim the asset freely.

Doing this gives the wardec a purpose and if conventional wars were made more expensive if the target corp was social only (no anchored assets in space) then this would possibly solve a large number of problems.

It would also allow a much smaller, casual corp to gather up the gumption to challenge a larger alliance for a piece of the pie, without getting shot like fish in a barrel in other parts of space. If an alliance has a dead stick in my part of space, they've moved out, and I want it, I should be able to declare war over just that dead stick. The alliance can decide if I'm worth it or not and I as the aggressor take the gamble that they're not going to want it. Instead of mindless spamming, strategy is introduced.

If the goal is player retention, then giving newer and smaller players the chance to actually gamble against a larger corporation for something then win or lose it by effort on that battlefield would go a lot farther than "ok, I see you on my overview, congratulations, we are at war."
David Asanari
AmPro
#42 - 2015-10-02 18:11:04 UTC
Andrew Gernander wrote:
The problem is that high sec is missing a formal "limited war" mechanic.

Something like...

1: Right click on an anchored object in overview
2: Select "declare war over"
3: Pay CONCORD a fee based on the value of the anchored object * sphere of influence (grid, system, constellation).
4: After warm-up period, aggressor and defender legally have at it within the sphere of influence and nowhere else.
5: If the defender never shows, the aggressor is able to claim the asset freely.

Doing this gives the wardec a purpose and if conventional wars were made more expensive if the target corp was social only (no anchored assets in space) then this would possibly solve a large number of problems.

It would also allow a much smaller, casual corp to gather up the gumption to challenge a larger alliance for a piece of the pie, without getting shot like fish in a barrel in other parts of space. If an alliance has a dead stick in my part of space, they've moved out, and I want it, I should be able to declare war over just that dead stick. The alliance can decide if I'm worth it or not and I as the aggressor take the gamble that they're not going to want it. Instead of mindless spamming, strategy is introduced.

If the goal is player retention, then giving newer and smaller players the chance to actually gamble against a larger corporation for something then win or lose it by effort on that battlefield would go a lot farther than "ok, I see you on my overview, congratulations, we are at war."


That's an interesting addition, perhaps.
But it won't solve the unlimited wardeccing of course.
Andrew Gernander
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-10-02 18:20:21 UTC
Well that's why you increase the wardec fee for a corp with no assets in space or possibly make a social corp class which is much more expensive to wardec.

In nature, an object follows the path of least resistance. If given the choice of having to spend 1bln + to declare war on a bunch of guys with only mining barges to their names, or taking the contract on the war where the guy has already said he's going to be going after X tower in Y system during Z week, I'll take the second offer as there's a better chance of a fight.

Of course, if you're in a social group and have decided to talk smack against a larger entity, then the larger entity should be able to suck up the cost to lay the smack down, or just go out and gank you.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#44 - 2015-10-02 19:13:21 UTC
My corp has no anchored assets. Why should it cost more to declare war on me than it does to declare war on an industrial corp with a POS tower?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#45 - 2015-10-02 19:17:06 UTC
Andrew Gernander wrote:
Well that's why you increase the wardec fee for a corp with no assets in space or possibly make a social corp class which is much more expensive to wardec.

In nature, an object follows the path of least resistance. If given the choice of having to spend 1bln + to declare war on a bunch of guys with only mining barges to their names, or taking the contract on the war where the guy has already said he's going to be going after X tower in Y system during Z week, I'll take the second offer as there's a better chance of a fight.

Of course, if you're in a social group and have decided to talk smack against a larger entity, then the larger entity should be able to suck up the cost to lay the smack down, or just go out and gank you.


So I happened to be in a merc (ish) chat channel a few nights ago. A dude shows up and asks "are you guys taking contracts?" Not my channel so I waited for a few minutes and no one answered the guy, so just to be funny by swiping a contract from them right in thier own channel I negotiated w/ the dude. He's going to mail me next week to finalize, but bottom line he's going to pay me a billion isk to wonk a guy in a particular ship in a particular station. It's literally going to be a 30 second job.

My point is some random is willing to pay me 1 billion to wonk a dude w/ no real discussion. 1 billion isk isn't all that much. There is sooooo much liquid and semi liquid isk in eve right now I don't think trying to put a financial limit on decs could really be a thing. If you want to correct war dec fees, then make it lower for smaller decing bigger and higher for bigger decing little. It's a great isk sink for the game and scaling it that way would encourage new groups to enter into HS pvp and would reward small lean effective groups and kind of put the kabosch on large bloated freeloading alliances.

There is too much wealth in the game to have high entry fee add meaning to HS pvp. I'll use the goons as an example. They're really good at eve and have been for quite a few years. Think of the biggest isk amount your brain can handle. They have more. A lot more, so if you want to raise the dec price enough to make a 5000 dude alliance think twice - I'd start somewhere in the trillions. And the thing about goons, if you made it prohibitively high, they would take the challenge and do it anyway just because. So price scalling - yes to promote the little guys getting into the game, but never to make large groups think twice about it.

If you want to put the war dec ship back on course - limit the number of concurrent agressions. You want meaning back in empire pvp then you have to take away the current 'unlimited decs' meta. From the lore aspect - you're already paying a fee for CONCORDS sanction, so just issue dance cards with only 10 slots.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#46 - 2015-10-02 19:20:44 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
David Asanari
AmPro
#47 - 2015-10-02 19:30:02 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?



It's not a nerf. It's a correction of a previously introduced behavior that is abused.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#48 - 2015-10-02 19:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Are you a vimsy alt?


No, I'm the logi alt of an old nullsec line member/awoxer.

And if you want to bring this to ad homs, linking your post history is all I'd have to do.

Serendipity Lost wrote:

I'd just like to see it balanced.


Balance is the last thing people like you want.

"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.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#49 - 2015-10-02 19:41:10 UTC
But what you're proposing isn't a correction. It's an additional limitation where none previously existed.

Prior to inferno alliances had no limitation on he number of wars they could declare, after inferno they still have no limitation, but for some reason now they declare a lot more wars.

You should try and identify the reason why that has happened and seek to address the actual cause, rather than crying for another nerf because the last set of nerfs didn't work.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#50 - 2015-10-02 19:41:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?




Quit the rhetoric. I don't want it nerfed. I want it meaningful. HS pvp can be a lot of fun. The biggest plus to HS pvp is no hot drops. That's a huge incentive for folks to use game mechanics to fight each other in HS. Being able to make some explosions knowing 100% that a super and a ton of support isn't going to land on your head and end you is pretty darn special. You can still get blobbed, sure, but with reasonable intel you can get around it.

I'm not trying to nerf, I'm trying to balance. 100+ open deck turkey shoots aren't balanced. 100+ pilot alliances having 10,000 RANDOM war targets in HS isn't balanced.

I just want it to be fun and meaingful again. Right now it isn't. I'm not the coroner trying to nail a coffin shut, I'm the EMT in the back of the ambulance charging up those paddle thingers trying to jolt some life back into a once great area of game play.

There hasn't been an epic, notable, noteworthy anything out of empire pvp in a long time. Currently empire mercs are doing nothing of interest. The don't make the news (other than the occaisional high five over an officer fit mission boat).

Things I like - space ship explosions

Things I don't like - boring predictable meaningless pvp, sentries on ishtars, sentries on carriers, space magic that protects sov null assets from being taken by force
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2015-10-02 19:45:24 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Quit the rhetoric. I don't want it nerfed.


Quit the lies. Yes, you do.

Your entire post history is full of begging for nerfs. You've been on your knees for CCP to nerf PvP so many times you're on your third set of patches for your jeans.

"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.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#52 - 2015-10-02 19:50:12 UTC
No amount of restrictions, limitations and barriers to entry will make something meaningful. All that will ever do is marginalize the mechanic and push it out of the hands of the general populace and into the hands of specialized groups.

That is exactly what happened in Inferno and is what lead to the situation with large mercenary groups with hundreds of wars.

You can't hit something with a hammer until its broken and then expect to fit it by hitting it even more.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#53 - 2015-10-02 20:07:16 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?




Quit the rhetoric. I don't want it nerfed. I want it meaningful. HS pvp can be a lot of fun. The biggest plus to HS pvp is no hot drops. That's a huge incentive for folks to use game mechanics to fight each other in HS. Being able to make some explosions knowing 100% that a super and a ton of support isn't going to land on your head and end you is pretty darn special. You can still get blobbed, sure, but with reasonable intel you can get around it.

I'm not trying to nerf, I'm trying to balance. 100+ open deck turkey shoots aren't balanced. 100+ pilot alliances having 10,000 RANDOM war targets in HS isn't balanced.

I just want it to be fun and meaingful again. Right now it isn't. I'm not the coroner trying to nail a coffin shut, I'm the EMT in the back of the ambulance charging up those paddle thingers trying to jolt some life back into a once great area of game play.

There hasn't been an epic, notable, noteworthy anything out of empire pvp in a long time. Currently empire mercs are doing nothing of interest. The don't make the news (other than the occaisional high five over an officer fit mission boat).

Things I like - space ship explosions

Things I don't like - boring predictable meaningless pvp, sentries on ishtars, sentries on carriers, space magic that protects sov null assets from being taken by force
No rhetoric, I'm merely trying to get past the normal BS. Posts like yours are full of rhetoric and they will most always contain something along the lines of "I like ganking, but." or "I like ships being violenced, but"

But it always boils down the same thing.

"Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."

Transparent, doesn't quite cover it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
David Asanari
AmPro
#54 - 2015-10-02 20:09:25 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
No amount of restrictions, limitations and barriers to entry will make something meaningful. All that will ever do is marginalize the mechanic and push it out of the hands of the general populace and into the hands of specialized groups.

That is exactly what happened in Inferno and is what lead to the situation with large mercenary groups with hundreds of wars.

You can't hit something with a hammer until its broken and then expect to fit it by hitting it even more.


General populace - right... There is a handful of alliances dedicated to wardeccing every possible corp/alliance in hi-sec. This is already catered into their hands. The general populace with one-time wardecs is irrelevant here. It's the killboard addicts trying to maximize the number of frigs/industrials killed by rendering the hi-sec security restrictions useless that are the problem.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#55 - 2015-10-02 20:11:07 UTC
David Asanari wrote:
It's the killboard addicts trying to maximize the number of frigs/industrials killed by rendering the hi-sec security restrictions useless that are the problem.


That's not a problem. In fact it's an intended use of the mechanic.

Wars are intended to be used for any reason, or none at all. That's what player freedom is, that's what makes it a sandbox. All you're doing is demonstrating that you are playing the wrong game.

"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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#56 - 2015-10-02 20:14:09 UTC
David Asanari wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?



It's not a nerf. It's a correction of a previously introduced behavior that is abused.
While ever you try and accuse players of abuse and suggest they should join FW in low sec, you will not be taken seriously.

Stop the emotional crap and you may get somewhere. You won't of course, because you have already shown a failure to be objective.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
David Asanari
AmPro
#57 - 2015-10-02 20:18:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
David Asanari wrote:
It's the killboard addicts trying to maximize the number of frigs/industrials killed by rendering the hi-sec security restrictions useless that are the problem.


That's not a problem. In fact it's an intended use of the mechanic.

Wars are intended to be used for any reason, or none at all. That's what player freedom is, that's what makes it a sandbox. All you're doing is demonstrating that you are playing the wrong game.


I'm playing the game I choose to play and it's not your business how I choose to play it. I never asked for your advice.
This is a public place for discussing suggestions. You are not suggesting anything besides "let's leave as it is". Your are used to the comforts of the current mechanic and that's your problem. The game evolves by changing. Changes can be new content/behavior or a change/removal of existing ones.

Deal with it or choose a different game to play.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#58 - 2015-10-02 20:21:02 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
But what you're proposing isn't a correction. It's an additional limitation where none previously existed.

Prior to inferno alliances had no limitation on he number of wars they could declare, after inferno they still have no limitation, but for some reason now they declare a lot more wars.

You should try and identify the reason why that has happened and seek to address the actual cause, rather than crying for another nerf because the last set of nerfs didn't work.



A lot of things have changed since inferno. Before that the number of decs were limited by the rapid ramping up of additional war decs. In isk terms of that day the ramp was pretty severe. Folks didn't have billions or trillions in their wallets back them.

Privateers got to the point where they were decing most of HS. Their actions caused CCP to install a rather harsh ramp up for concurrent war decs. I clearly remember the last 2 weeks of the Privateer stuff. Back then the mym had a BS tank, drones and autocannons. There were 2 of them on almost every gate in HS. Null folks dropped what they were doing and swelled the ranks of Pivateers for those 2 weeks and it was glorious empire carnage. The end of an age and a brilliant glorious end at that.

The short age of the ramp followed. After the 5th active dec, few corps had the isk to cover the dec fee for mercs, so it was normal for there to be a line 2 or 3 weeks out of clients waiting for the fees to drop. Clients were in a que so to speak. A lot of merc corps sprung up overnight to cash in on the isk. A lot of them were crap corps that did crap work, but there was plenty of work so it persisted.

Then inferno changed it to what it is today. Not at first. But over time it became obvious that the way to succeed as a merc corp was to grow big and fat and offer assistance on every dec that is made. It's rediculous.

I had an alt in a POCO bashing corp for a while. Was a decent way to generate some limited HS pvp. Here's the thing that got me understanding just how broken the current merc meta is. We'd occaisionally get decced for waht we wer doing and within the hour of getting the dec the mails would start rolling in. Offers to assist that ranged anywhere from free to 10 mil isk. It was then that I understood - it wasn't about anything but maximizing target count. 'merc' outfits no longer needed to maintain a good reputation and compete for their empire pvp - they just needed some ninny to scan the decs and spam the involved parties as war decs were created.

I would just like to have the mechanics changed to where merc groups were again in competition and where reputation and ability drive the contract price. This current meta of large target counts and low to zero value in a war dec is crazy.


Summary: There was an isk ramp limit on the number of decs you could have. There was not an assist option in the game. Assist was added and the ramp was removed and now we have a crap meta. I don't see value in removing the assist feature - it's good stuff. I don't see value in returning to the isk ramp (pay to win and too much isk presently in the game). I do see value in a limit in the number of acts of agression (decs + assists) - my opinion is that this will put meaning back into both war decs in general and the 'merc market' in specific. I picked 10 as a starting limit - I based that on we used to cary 5 -7 contracts and that was plenty of action for a healthy merc corp of the time so I sort of doubled it for a starting point) I would prefer to 100 ten man merc outfits competing than to see 10 hundred man merc outfits shooting fish in a barrel.

Don't nerf empire pvp - make it fun again.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#59 - 2015-10-02 20:21:51 UTC
David Asanari wrote:

I'm playing the game I choose to play and it's not your business how I choose to play it. I never asked for your advice.
This is a public place for discussing suggestions. You are not suggesting anything besides "let's leave as it is". Your are used to the comforts of the current mechanic and that's your problem. The game evolves by changing. Changes can be new content/behavior or a change/removal of existing ones..
You are not suggesting anything but "remove the mercenary playstyle because I don't like it".

Again, how would this make this make the game better? What problem are you trying to solve?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
David Asanari
AmPro
#60 - 2015-10-02 20:23:11 UTC
Mag's wrote:
David Asanari wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'd just like to see it balanced.
Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?



It's not a nerf. It's a correction of a previously introduced behavior that is abused.
While ever you try and accuse players of abuse and suggest they should join FW in low sec, you will not be taken seriously.

Stop the emotional crap and you may get somewhere. You won't of course, because you have already shown a failure to be objective.


I don't need to be objective. Different people want different things. I'm the "weak carebear", so I'm asking CCP for a change. The game should make it difficult on you. "tough hi-sec pvp'ers". You are the ones that want "challenge" and "content".
Several more people agree the mechanic needs some change. Only the lazy killboard addicts want to leave it unchanged.