These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Fix the War Dec system

First post
Author
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#21 - 2015-12-08 18:06:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Taram Caldar
Frost Journeaux wrote:


Idea to improve. have wars have a specific target, SOV, PI offices. moons. Some achievable goal other than cause we want to.

Now for the onslaught of our actions are justified and other rhetoric.


Honestly most highsec wars do have goals. Yes, there are groups that use wardecs just to get easy kills on newbs/industrial folks. But a lot of wars are over strategic things as well... or to limit a 0.0 or lowsec entity's ability to support themselves logistically (hauling, not repping) Or to drive a competitor out of an area.

Not all wardecs are just to shoot plebs.

Your idea isn't a BAD one but you're trying to over generalize. A lot of wars can't realistically have a 'goal' because they have several or are broad in nature specifically because the objective is nebulous.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Iain Cariaba
#22 - 2015-12-08 18:33:49 UTC
Taram Caldar wrote:
Yes, there are groups that use wardecs just to get easy kills on newbs/industrial folks.

Which is also a goal.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#23 - 2015-12-08 22:01:18 UTC
I wardec corps when they refuse to buy mining permits and follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.

It almost always goes like this:

I gank one of their miners and contact the CEO to tell him they are mining in New Order space and that each member will need a permit and to follow the Code. He sends back a, usually, offensive refusal. I give them five minutes. Nothing happens (for five minutes). Then I wardec the corp.

On very rare occasions they fight back. On even rarer occasions they fight back for a long time. In most cases, a bunch of the members drop to NPC corps, the rest don't log in or sit in station continuously. After several weeks either the corp is dead or I move on to someone else. The corps usually don't recover.

So, what's the point of this?

If you follow the New Order you know we are dedicated to saving highsec. Since highsec miners often are bot aspirants AND highsec mining CEOs are the worst sort we are saving highsec by destroying corporations that have no reason to exist other than to take advantage of new players. This usually means the CEOs get rich off the labor of their minions. A wardec shows these rank and file miners that what they are doing is both pointless AND humiliating. Nobody joins Eve because they heard the minings great! They join to shoot spaceships and CEOs who somehow convince the new blood that they have to be an AFK drone flower picker ruin the game for them. People get bored by doing repetitive tasking and mining is the most repetitive thing a person can do in game. I mean it really sucks and people only do it if they can AFK and go watch TV or something. Since this is a violation of the Code, as not-playing the game is by definition not playing the game we force players to interact, respond, and in general, not undock in a vulnerable ship, siddle up next to a rock, start the lasers ...and go do the laundry.

Long but cool story, eh? So, I have a purpose for my wardecs which probably looks indistinquishable from what the OP says most highsec wardecs are. And yet, its a perfectly good reason in my mind.

Remembering that I am always looking for new corps to wardec... who's to say different?

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#24 - 2015-12-09 02:59:25 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
But seriously guys, social corps should be a thing.

Serendipity Lost wrote:
TL/DR social corps shouldn't be a thing - risk aversion should have drawbacks. This is a Pvp game after all.

Thank you both for proving my point.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#25 - 2015-12-09 03:07:33 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
The game does not understand 'borders' in hi-sec. Nor can it fully grasp all the possible reasons one corp can have to wardec another. Best way to keep things sandboxy and incorporate everything from vengeance and hired hits to territory and even genocide, is to allow corps to wardec for whatever reason they want. This is a PvP game after all.

As a side note, by starting a Corp you are consenting to wardecs. It is not the wardeccers fault you dont know how to defend yourselves. This is what im talking about when the 'blind are leading the blind' and how corps like yours can hurt New player retention.

Did you know your Corp can mine together just as they can now without actually being in a Corp? Drop to an npc Corp and make a common chat channel for you all to use. Call it 'corp chat' and form fleets together without the risk of wardecs.

But seriously guys, social corps should be a thing.



Your chat thing just described a social group that isn't a corp, which is what you want.... oh wait, you want the convenience of corp hangars and other corp stuff w/out the inconvenience of being war dec'd.

Move along kid, you can't cherry pick.

TL/DR social corps shouldn't be a thing - risk aversion should have drawbacks. This is a Pvp game after all.


Nope

Im actually pushing for social corps that behave no differently to npc corps as far as game mechanics are concerned.

Npc Corp tax level that is an isk sink
No Corp tax/no Corp wallet
No hangars
No Corp assets
No Corp contracts


All you get is a common chat channel, a killmail api, medals, a mailing list, a Corp name and ticker, a calendar and the other social aspects of a Corp.

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

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2015-12-09 03:11:53 UTC
Frost Journeaux wrote:
Ill bet the first post will be don't be so salty but everyone even the groups that do it know that the war dec system needs some love.

first and foremost. What is war for?

Currently its about how big peoples epeen is.

According to Sun Tsu-


lmao

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#27 - 2015-12-09 04:38:46 UTC
Ageanal Olerie wrote:


Here's one simple fix for that.

Make Mining, Industrial, and other non-combat ships off limits. If attacked CONCORD will still respond.



For the love of god(s) no!

All ships are combat ships... any attempt to define ships as non-combat (untouchable) will result in the worst exploitation...

Try putting a point on your mining ship during a wardec...
or try attacking 5 hostile barges with light drones and see how that turns out...
or using a brick tank industrial as bait...

You'll soon realise that all ships have the capability to defend themselves, some more than others, but every ship in the game can defend itself and be used in a combat role.

P.s. Yes OK, freighters can't really be used in a combat role... but they are still provided with tools to defend themselves, mostly by avoiding the fights.

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-12-09 04:48:38 UTC
The point of war in eve is because mission running is boring and you need to do something with all that spare ISK you've got floating around.
Frost Journeaux
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2015-12-12 05:21:20 UTC
Raiz Nhell wrote:
Ageanal Olerie wrote:


Here's one simple fix for that.

Make Mining, Industrial, and other non-combat ships off limits. If attacked CONCORD will still respond.



For the love of god(s) no!

All ships are combat ships... any attempt to define ships as non-combat (untouchable) will result in the worst exploitation...

Try putting a point on your mining ship during a wardec...
or try attacking 5 hostile barges with light drones and see how that turns out...
or using a brick tank industrial as bait...

You'll soon realise that all ships have the capability to defend themselves, some more than others, but every ship in the game can defend itself and be used in a combat role.

P.s. Yes OK, freighters can't really be used in a combat role... but they are still provided with tools to defend themselves, mostly by avoiding the fights.


I've taken on many more than 5 barges and won. they are not defensible. they are fragile and easy to beat a t3 vs a t1 or t2 mining barge the t3 wins every time.

also your looking at corporations that have potentially no combat pilots those drone skills are just enough to get t2 drones to kill rats. even in null you have to call for help if rats come in or its RIP hulk.
O'nira
Litla Sundlaugin
#30 - 2015-12-12 13:26:04 UTC  |  Edited by: O'nira
easy fix(to talk about anyways)

if you want to war dec someone then you need to put down a structure and defend it like a pos or like a citadel/sov with some set vulnerability timer against the targets you war decced, the targets can recruit people to help them kill the structure or fight the war deccers off if they are defending the structure wich adds a lot of interaction between people wich is great for the game


i feel like the whole war dec system would work better with this in game. the only real losers of this idea is the station campers but actual wars would become a lot better because it's not 1 sided anymore and that is the biggest problem with wars in eve, they are ridiculously one sided in favour of the war deccers.



This is not my idea at all and has been around for years and years
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2015-12-12 20:56:28 UTC
I don't have a problem with wardecs existing.

The issue that I have, is there is no incentive to actually fight, on either side.
With the current wardec system, the best strategy is denial. Notice I say "best" strategy.

Why is it that this is the best strategy, as opposed to fighting it out?

Lets look at some of the reasons:
Station games, gate games, out of corp logi/boosts, significantly outnumbered, outgunned/outclassed, neutral scouting, surprise attacks (IE - catching a miner or missioner out alone), no way for defender to end the war that would be considered a win, and no incentives to fight..

So, how to we resolve the issues?

Station/gate games - Increase the aggression timer to something like 2 minutes or more

Out of corp logi/boosts/any other interference - Make these CONCORD offenses. This ensures the fight stay between the two entities

Significantly outnumbered - Instead of making it cost more to wardec large entities (which only helps to protect major alliances) make it cost more for every pilot you outnumber the defender by.

Outgunned/outclassed - Sorry, but this will never and should never change... As mentioned on another comment, you can load your corp down with ewar frigs and troll the aggressor all day because they can't target. Even if they're flying T3 cruisers, there's likely something you can do to at least hurt them a little.

Neutral Scouting - Again, this will not and should not change. It's possible to gain intel and determine who their scouts are. You can also use your own scouts.

Surprise Attacks - This, as well, isn't an issue directly. Thus is should not and will not change... HOWEVER, this does have ties to "no way to win" and "no incentive", which I'm about to get to.

No way for defender to win the war - There needs to be something to give the defender the ability to essentially "win" the war.
Typically, what the defender is looking for, is for the war to end. That's generally their main goal. To stop the war so they can get back to what they enjoy doing. The most common suggestion for doing this is a structure, something like a war banner, to which they can destroy and will lead to the end of the war.
There are those that argue "this is just another way for people to get around the wardec". To you I say, you are biased and only wish to see wardecs stay in your favor, so that you can continue to undock when you want to, and have no vested interest in the war apart from blowing unsuspecting people up. You are essentially forcing your preferred play style onto your target. They can't force their activities onto you. They can't force you to run sites, mission, mine, produce, or whatever it is they do.
Therefore, they need to be presented with an option that will allow them to restore their way of play.
The best part about this for the aggressor, is that this option is to actually fight.
So, if you say no to this idea, it shows that you have no intentions to fight and only want KMs.
Mind you, this is coming from a player (myself) who just used the wardec mechanic in order to pop two miners and their pods, worth over 2.5 billion isk. So, I've been on both sides of the coin and have seen the imbalance.

No incentives to fight - The attacker doesn't have to fight if the situation doesn't suit them, and the defender has no interest in fighting if they have no structures, as it will have no positive outcome. So far, the structure idea is the best way to accomplish this (unless someone has a better idea). This provides the defender with a means to an out through combat, while the aggressor has targets brought to them and must fight in order keep the war going.


Now, someone will note the obvious flaws with a structure oriented design.

those being:
The current ally mechanic - With these changes, remove that system. If they wish to ally, they can pay to have to other entity wardec the target.

The aggressor will just place the structure somewhere they can easily defend - The option here is that the aggressor must place the structure either in the defender's home system(option 1), or a HS system located directly between the two entities home systems (option 2). In either case, the aggressor shouldn't be allow have things so easy.

If the aggressor decs a large entity, they'll just day one pop the structure - Well, that's the kind of crap that happens when you try to pick on the bigger kid. Don't start a fight you can't handle.

SOV entities wardeccing each other shouldn't revolve around a single structure - To this I agree, which is why I feel that any SOV entity should be able to wardec any other SOV entity without the use of a structure. The way to stop the war is to take their SOV. Perhaps this should be attached to a "home system" or something along that means, so that they can't just SOV jump all over the place. However, if a SOV entity wishes to wardec a HS entity, they must place a structure in HS.

What if a defender still doesn't fight - Well, that's their problem. As long as the structure is up, and the aggressor continues to fuel it/leave it anchored, they can keep them wardecced.

How is this fair to the aggressor - Well, firstly the ability for the defender to ally is taken away. Second, you started a wardec. Don't be surprised that the intent here is to actually get you to fight in your own wardec. With this scenario, it also has the benefit of bringing your target to a place where you can fight them, away from gates and stations. In other words, if the defender is willing to fight, the fight is brought to a centralized location.
This benefits aggressors who intend to fight, were as the current mechanics benefit aggressors who intend surprise attacks with no intent of actually engaging in risks.
This also benefits defenders who intend to fight and actually gives them something to fight, where as the current mechanics favor those who can deny the aggressor until they get...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-12-12 21:07:52 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
My personal wall of text.


Ultimately, the goal behind the design I suggested is to persuade somewhat "fair" fights, while actually persuading fighting at the same time.

The Currently mechanics heavily favor outnumbering your target while also setting "denial of kills" as the best strategy.
Any mechanic that puts most of the favor onto one side and in which not playing/removing yourself from the interactivity of players (CCP's personal belief on what helps retention), is a bad design.

The whole purpose of Eve is to thrive off the interactivity of the players in and out of combat. The current wardec system is not only counter-intuitive to that goal, but even goes further into suggesting that players remove themselves from involvement by either not logging in, or dropping to NPC corps, which by CCP's own beliefs, hinders player retention.

Sure, Eve is not fair, and imbalanced combat in and out of HS is part of that.
However, that doesn't mean that the mechanics should favor outnumbering your intended target.
Abramul
Canadian Forces Corp
United 4 Nations
#33 - 2015-12-13 01:29:52 UTC
Joe, what are your feelings on mercenaries joining a wardecced corp instead of using assist mechanic?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2015-12-13 03:16:23 UTC
Abramul wrote:
Joe, what are your feelings on mercenaries joining a wardecced corp instead of using assist mechanic?


Don't too much care.
The removal of the ally mechanic doesn't take away the ability to have a merc corp start their own dec.
However, they too will be subject to the numbers balance, IE if they outnumber their target, they pay more per member they outnumber by.
Secondly, they will also require a structure to be placed.


On an added note, if a war is made mutual, a structure (or whatever) is no longer required, the dec cost is wiped (no one pays) and they only way for a dec to end is one side surrenders, or both come to a mutual agreement.


GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-12-13 07:07:04 UTC


I like your idea Joe,

I left a corp and alliance that I very much enjoyed being in because they were under constant war dec. And I'm not into non-mutual PvP for the most part. Without that social aspect of the game, my interest has waned and I've left the game several times now for very lengthy periods.

What are your thoughts on exempting non-combat ships from War Decs (miners, industrials, haulers, shuttles)? Such that CONCORD would still respond as normal to attacks on such vessels? That is of course unless they engaged in some aggressive action (or perhaps even if they are equipped with any offensive modules).

Frankly if I can't engage in these non-combat PvE activities without being harassed (outside of suicide ganking), then I'll probably never join an Player Corp again and that's really one of the most engaging aspects of the game that keeps people subscribed.

I don't think non-combat ships should be valid targets in a War Dec anyhow, since if it's really about PvP then what's the sense in attacking ships that can't fight back, particularly ones a solo pilot can pop in under 30 seconds. I think those who object know that for them it's really about getting their jollys from harassment and griefing their War Decced target.



Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2015-12-13 08:01:09 UTC
GoodGreyer Ayderan wrote:


What are your thoughts on exempting non-combat ships from War Decs (miners, industrials, haulers, shuttles)? Such that CONCORD would still respond as normal to attacks on such vessels? That is of course unless they engaged in some aggressive action (or perhaps even if they are equipped with any offensive modules).


I am strongly against that, and here's why.

During a wardec, no entity should be protect regardless of what ship they fly.
Not to mention, this gives whomever is in that specific ship, the ability to use it in order to take advantage of this.
IE, i can bring in a bunch of indy ships and you won't be able to attack me, until we're all staged up and ready to fight.

Secondly, if the wardec mechanics present you with a means to end the war, you're not going to want to sit around mining; you're going to want to take down whatever it is that will end the war.

Also, you must realize that some of the indy ships (skiff) are extremely powerful if used properly.


Lastly, I agree that it is one of the risks associated with joining a player corp. Just because you're in a Hulk, doesn't mean you're safe from that... Where would the line be drawn? Would I be able to have my Golem immune to the war? I mean, it's only intended for PVE...
Should my Jackdaw be immune, since I only use it for quick hauling?
What if I have a freighter full of combat ships to resupply the war effort? It is immune to the dec?

Point is, you can't draw a line on what ships are valid targets, as the line will get blurred.

Again though, with my proposed suggestion, you'll actually want to fight.
However, if you're still not willing to fight, even when presented with an out... Perhaps player corps aren't the best option for you?
Not trying to be offensive on that, but it's very true...
I could understand player not willing to fight with how the mechanics are now, but if something along the lines of my suggestion comes along, then those not willing to fight never will.

Alternately, if you're just looking to supply your war effort, perhaps the best option is to open a second account, or train an alt on your one account to be able to mine/mission/incursion.
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-12-13 08:43:37 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I am strongly against that, and here's why.

During a wardec, no entity should be protect regardless of what ship they fly.
Not to mention, this gives whomever is in that specific ship, the ability to use it in order to take advantage of this.
IE, i can bring in a bunch of indy ships and you won't be able to attack me, until we're all staged up and ready to fight.

Secondly, if the wardec mechanics present you with a means to end the war, you're not going to want to sit around mining; you're going to want to take down whatever it is that will end the war.

Also, you must realize that some of the indy ships (skiff) are extremely powerful if used properly.

Lastly, I agree that it is one of the risks associated with joining a player corp. Just because you're in a Hulk, doesn't mean you're safe from that... Where would the line be drawn? Would I be able to have my Golem immune to the war? I mean, it's only intended for PVE...
Should my Jackdaw be immune, since I only use it for quick hauling?
What if I have a freighter full of combat ships to resupply the war effort? It is immune to the dec?

Point is, you can't draw a line on what ships are valid targets, as the line will get blurred.

Again though, with my proposed suggestion, you'll actually want to fight.
However, if you're still not willing to fight, even when presented with an out... Perhaps player corps aren't the best option for you?
Not trying to be offensive on that, but it's very true...
I could understand player not willing to fight with how the mechanics are now, but if something along the lines of my suggestion comes along, then those not willing to fight never will.

Alternately, if you're just looking to supply your war effort, perhaps the best option is to open a second account, or train an alt on your one account to be able to mine/mission/incursion.


I'm sure CCP could put a little more thought and effort into it and have the exclusion only apply to non-combat ships (this does not include combat PvE ships), and only non-combat ships that are not fitted with any offensive modules. Which is clearly a bit more coding effort.

The fact of the matter is, even with your suggestion, a corp can STILL be under constant War Dec and there will still be plenty of daily opportunity to grief defenseless ships.

So unless your new idea comes with a period of time where a corp cannot be War Decced after a previous War Dec, then it's still a way to continually grief corps (and players) who want to get back to doing what it is they enjoy doing (which wasn't that the goal you laid out).

Perhaps have a two week breather after finishing a war. Or for every day you are War Decced you get two days where you can't be War Decced after the war ends.

If EVE doesn't have enough interest for those who opt-in to consensual PvP to engage in PvP with one another such that players must be forced into it, then maybe EVE isn't the game CCP (and PvPers) think it is. Apparently there are far too many people who play EVE who don't want to engage in PvP and many others who don't want to engage in actual PvP battles against worthy PvP opponents. That is if there is this pressing need to force those who don't want to PvP into it, otherwise you're not allowed to participate in the social aspects of the game (corporations).

There are other options to consider as well. For instance, if the War Deccing corporation is paying off CONCORD to look the other way, or whatever is going on there, why not allow the defending corp to counter-bribe? It could be a bidding war, and a huge ISK sink.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#38 - 2015-12-13 09:37:30 UTC
GoodGreyer Ayderan wrote:

The fact of the matter is, even with your suggestion, a corp can STILL be under constant War Dec and there will still be plenty of daily opportunity to grief defenseless ships.


Wars are not griefing under any circumstances, you are only defenseless if you deliberately choose to be, and you are neither supposed to be safe nor should you expect to be safe anywhere in New Eden.

It is basically impossible for you to be more in the wrong.

"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.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Asymmetric-Warfare
#39 - 2015-12-13 11:05:40 UTC
People have fought war for genocide. Seems to be working as intended.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#40 - 2015-12-13 15:56:26 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
What if a defender still doesn't fight - Well, that's their problem. As long as the structure is up, and the aggressor continues to fuel it/leave it anchored, they can keep them wardecced.

Sorry but this portion of your idea would be very bad thing, there needs to be a time limit on a war dec and the current 1 week seems about right when you fairly consider all factors.
Disparity of a corps ability to fight is one reason for a time limit. Even at equal size a war dec corp due to character and personal skills is an entity that a group of industrial players has no realistic chance of defeating, so in reality that structure becomes the ticket to a permanent war dec and that would not end well for CCP.