These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#301 - 2015-12-26 00:45:40 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Actually, the gate guns aren't specifically tied to sec status... They are, but at the same time, they're more tied to aggression timers.


You have it backwards.

The aggression timers were overlayed on top of the sec status hit during Crimewatch. The sec status hit is the base trigger for all of it. (it was around waaaaay before Crimewatch, in fact I don't recall a point at which it hasn't been in the game, so it's probably in the base code)


Quote:

It might also be who of CCP to make gate gun damage increase over time..
If you sit on a gate performing hostile actions for too long, they will get higher and higher damage.


Eh, ~170 dps per gun seems fine to me. It already has a very harsh on effect on smaller ship classes to begin with.


Quote:

By the way, despite all our differences in opinion..

Merry Christmas Kaarous.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all Good Fight!


Merry Christmas.

"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.

ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#302 - 2015-12-26 01:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.


I have removed some post and those quoting it for the above reasons. I know this is bit of a hot button issue but please keep it civil.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#303 - 2015-12-27 10:23:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Morgan Agrivar
So I have finally found my calling and also managed to get a new player to sub for a year in this game. I am trying to create content just not for myself, my newbro and my corporation...but everyone around me that I interact with. I think highsec wardecs should have some sort of formula to where if a small corporation declares war on another small corporation, it shouldn't be as expensive as an alliance do the same thing to some small corporation. I don't have the same capital as say, Marmite.

But raising the price for wardecs overall is where I draw the line. I am spending my own isk to create content for those around me and not really making any profit on it whatsoever. I do not think that will fix anything at all.

And hell no to paying for a wardec shield to protect you from wardecs. Bad idea is bad.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2015-12-27 16:46:20 UTC
Frost Journeaux wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
If you don't have a feature or idea to discuss, shouldn't you have posted this little whine in GD or something?

idea is now in there. thought I put a decent description of the problem to the point it was obvious but its ok.

Make wars fought over something. an actual reason.


Why isn't "because I want to shoot something" a reason?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#305 - 2015-12-27 23:33:27 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Frost Journeaux wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
If you don't have a feature or idea to discuss, shouldn't you have posted this little whine in GD or something?

idea is now in there. thought I put a decent description of the problem to the point it was obvious but its ok.

Make wars fought over something. an actual reason.


Why isn't "because I want to shoot something" a reason?


He means reasons that hes ok with. Like how the sandbox means only playstyles hes ok with should be allowed.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#306 - 2015-12-27 23:43:38 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


He means reasons that hes ok with. Like how the sandbox means only playstyles hes ok with should be allowed.


You mean like defending a mechanic to which only one person can end, yet it's within a game that revolves around any situation being altered by any person, and exists within said sandbox?

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#307 - 2015-12-27 23:45:46 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:


He means reasons that hes ok with. Like how the sandbox means only playstyles hes ok with should be allowed.


You mean like defending a mechanic to which only one person can end, yet it's within a game that revolves around any situation being altered by any person, and exists within said sandbox?



Except your contrivance is entirely false. There are plenty of things in this game in which only the person taking initiative has the say in.

All you want is to justify stripping away more player freedom. And you will say and do anything to break the game in your favor, you lot are just that selfish.

"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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#308 - 2015-12-27 23:51:42 UTC
For example, every single thing you can do in the market. You don't get to "counter" anything someone else does, you have to accept it and REACT by changing your behavior, or else you suffer for it.

Which is what carebears hate so much about non consensual PvP, because it means you can't just keep on farming your worthless lives away, it means that you'd actually have to play the 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.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#309 - 2015-12-28 00:02:15 UTC
Joe you know I favour a way for defenders to end a Dec if they put in effort and succeed.

But trying to dictate the reasons for which wardecs can be made is about as non-sandbox as it can get.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#310 - 2015-12-28 00:08:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
For example, every single thing you can do in the market. You don't get to "counter" anything someone else does, you have to accept it and REACT by changing your behavior, or else you suffer for it.


Actually, I can undercut your sales pricing.
I can find out where you produce items, destroy it if it's a POS, or wardec and station camp, even take the SOV territory you're producing in.
I can figure out your resource collection lines and destroy them.

I can do several different things in order to counter your market transactions.


Quote:
Which is what carebears hate so much about non consensual PvP, because it means you can't just keep on farming your worthless lives away, it means that you'd actually have to play the game.


I have no problem with non-consensual pvp.
However, it would appear that you seem to have a problem with the mechanic in which the defender consenting in the PVP would result in forcefully ending the war.

You can wardec me forcefully.. I should be able to win the war forcefully.
If you're afraid this is a "dec immunity" then it only goes to show your inability to fight against aggressive actions.

You don't even want to undock in order to defend your playstyle, yet expect others to bend to your will in order to continue their playstyle.
This is by definition hypocrisy at its finest.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#311 - 2015-12-28 00:10:58 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Joe you know I favour a way for defenders to end a Dec if they put in effort and succeed.

But trying to dictate the reasons for which wardecs can be made is about as non-sandbox as it can get.


Sorry, misunderstood your comment.

Though, I agree that they can have any reasoning they want in order to wardec someone.

However, those reasons don't mean their "playstyle" should be free of forceful loss.


I can lose at literally anything in Eve, unless I start a wardec... In which case, I can lose everything and still not lose the war.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#312 - 2015-12-28 01:00:43 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I can do several different things in order to counter your market transactions.


That's exactly what I was talking about, you'd be REACTING and changing what you were doing before.

Which is what you think the defender should not have to do in a war. Hell, some of the disgusting bears in this thread think they should be able to farm their way out of a war, without having to react or change in any way at all.


Quote:

I have no problem with non-consensual pvp.


You lie.

Pretty much anything you post is against non consensual PvP.


Quote:

You can wardec me forcefully.. I should be able to win the war forcefully.


You can win the fight, obviously.

But you want winning a fight to equate to complete safety afterward, and that is not only wrong, it is never going to happen.

The agency in that decision belongs to the aggressor and no one else.

Quote:

This is by definition hypocrisy at its finest.


It's not hypocrisy of any kind. I just don't want my playstyle chained to a useless structure. I just don't want solo and small groups to be crippled by your unreasonable restrictions and barriers.

I think conflict should be encouraged and proliferated, not squelched and discouraged.

"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.

Helios Panala
#313 - 2015-12-28 01:08:24 UTC
A few years ago I was mining in HS, just shooting some rocks all by my lonesome in some backwater system. The residents of this system took exception to this and followed me around with a small mining fleet preventing me from harvesting any of those precious rocks. It was annoying and seemed totally unwarranted to be honest.

Anyway, about a month back I was in the area again and noticed a name in local, took me a while to figure out why it was so familiar. It was one of the people who'd been preventing me mining all those years ago, still in the same area, still mining.

This character I'm on now has never really done anything but post rubbish on these forums, but for now he is on quite a long skill queue and when it is done I plan to go back and wage a one man war on that group for as long as I feel like, my main makes enough to keep this guy in ships and wardecs for a very long time.
I'll probably be a total ass about it to be honest and I doubt I'll ever explain why I'm doing it.

So, anyway, my point is, I'm quite open to idea of war decs changing. I quite like the structure idea as I've said before, even though it means that if they reshipped into combat ships and fought me I'd almost certainly lose.
I am however very against the OP's idea of needing an objective. I have an objective, I want to settle a grudge I've held for a ridiculous amount of time that is very possibly imagined, it's not an objective that lends itself well to game mechanics. Should I not be allowed to proceed with my plan?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#314 - 2015-12-28 01:32:54 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
A few years ago I was mining in HS, just shooting some rocks all by my lonesome in some backwater system. The residents of this system took exception to this and followed me around with a small mining fleet preventing me from harvesting any of those precious rocks. It was annoying and seemed totally unwarranted to be honest.

Anyway, about a month back I was in the area again and noticed a name in local, took me a while to figure out why it was so familiar. It was one of the people who'd been preventing me mining all those years ago, still in the same area, still mining.

This character I'm on now has never really done anything but post rubbish on these forums, but for now he is on quite a long skill queue and when it is done I plan to go back and wage a one man war on that group for as long as I feel like, my main makes enough to keep this guy in ships and wardecs for a very long time.
I'll probably be a total ass about it to be honest and I doubt I'll ever explain why I'm doing it.

So, anyway, my point is, I'm quite open to idea of war decs changing. I quite like the structure idea as I've said before, even though it means that if they reshipped into combat ships and fought me I'd almost certainly lose.
I am however very against the OP's idea of needing an objective. I have an objective, I want to settle a grudge I've held for a ridiculous amount of time that is very possibly imagined, it's not an objective that lends itself well to game mechanics. Should I not be allowed to proceed with my plan?


I too am against arbitrary objectives.
I don't think there should be standards on what the aggressor has to accomplish, as their accomplishments are meta.

Having said that, I am a proponent of the structure idea, though, I will say that if a better idea than a structure can be found, I'm for it as long as it makes fighting word doing.

As far as Kaarous' claim that it will kill small entity wardecs, well... Yes, and no.

Taken with my ideas on the deccer paying significantly more to outnumber their opponent, and my idea that each corp in an alliance can have wars separate from each other, while the alliance holds wars to which all corps can join, it would make small deccing corps more viable.

Here's my thoughts..
You take a 5 man corp and wardec a 10 man corp... Given that you likely know the capabilities of the defending corp, you should have no problems keeping them from destroying your structure.
There would be another corp within your alliance that has a wardec with 20 attackers and 30 defenders.
At the same time,'your alliance of 500 would have a Dec against a SOV alliance with 700 people in it.

this allows the corps and alliance to still retain a high number of wars, but keeping the numbers in each war fairly balanced.
This is to make the defender actually fighting more enticing.
Again, my idea was that giving these perks to the defender means they lose the ally mechanic.

I also had the idea that the structures are within dead space, thus only the players involved in the war can be near the structure.
... But, this idea is entirely optional and is intended to "counter-act" a relative allying situation where mutilple people wardec the same target and defend each other's structures. I'd rather the individual wars themselves not get convoluted with that stuff.
They'll still be able to gate and station camp Though....


I also had a surprisingly good idea on the vulnerability timers of the structure.
The structure is only vulnerable when there is a member of the aggressions corp online.
If the structure is engaged during that time, and the aggressors log off, the structure remains vulnerable as long as it is still being attacked, with a 15 minute aggression CD.. So, if the aggressor logs and you're shooting the structure, but for some reason stop shooting the structure for longer than 15 minutes, it becomes invulnerable until the aggressor logs back on.
This is essentially the same mechanics used for aggression timers when a player logs with an aggression timer.

So, this means you don't have to worry about losing the war when you're not online, unless it was being attacked before you logged off.
Madd Adda
#315 - 2015-12-28 02:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
The problem with wars in eve is that while you can force non-NPC corps into war, you can't make its members fight. War decs are merely the warning signal used to either prepare, high tail it out of the way, or lose ships.

Carebear extraordinaire

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2015-12-28 02:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
I agree wardecs are broken though, but I'll tell you why. Because player corps in highsec are meaningless. They're mostly just run by a bunch of kids that want social recognition by proxy of 'leadership'. ie, "look at me, I'm a great leader". Most of them are terrible leaders, and terrible at EVE. The dive into corp leadership as if it's just another 'guild' where everyone's invited, because we all know artificially inflated communities that have little to no resemblance to a community are the best way to create a cohesive unit, a team where everyone has a mutually beneficial albeit unique task or role to fulfil for the sake of fulfilling the team's goals. Roll

Wardecs are broken because people don't know what they're doing. The only solution to that problem right now is for players to learn what they're doing. Although there are a variety of ways to make corporations in high sec more meaningful. With the understanding that any player owned corporation can be wardecced, the corp creation system needs to remind them that they are entering a realm of new possibilities, including getting wardecced. The 24 hour cooldown after quitting a corp during a wardec needs to be extended to a 24 hour cooldown before joining ANY AND ALL corporations. Make being part of a player-run corporation a more meaningful commitment, and wardecs will mean more than they do now. Then, after you've made corporations more of a commitment, reward them for seeing that commitment through. Game provides corporation with one free Citadel to call their own at 50 long term members, long term being a year or something that is actually long term. Or if that's likely to be exploitable or break the economy, something that acknowledges long-term committed corporation establishments.

Until that happens, "because I want to shoot at something" is literally the only reason for a wardec in high sec. The wardec system itself is not broken, it's just fine, with the exception of permadecs being far too easy to fund. I can agree with that and only that, and that's easy to fix - make decs incrementally more expensive per week or month of dec renewal. If you need more than a week of war to achieve your goals against a corporation in high sec, you are doing something wrong, or very very salty.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2015-12-28 02:27:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:


He means reasons that hes ok with. Like how the sandbox means only playstyles hes ok with should be allowed.


You mean like defending a mechanic to which only one person can end, yet it's within a game that revolves around any situation being altered by any person, and exists within said sandbox?



Both sides are entirely capable of ending a wardec, through a variety of means. One of them being PVP, and crushing your enemy. If you choose not to learn PVP, that is not the fault of the wardec system, that is your CHOICE. Which you are free to make in this sandbox despite the understanding that the game was designed around true player freedom and PVP in the first place. Sometimes, true player freedom, which means the freedom to do what you like, means people are going to do what they like to other players. But the game itself isn't restricting you from doing anything. You are doing that to yourself when you are too afraid to undock because you chose, which you're free to do at your own discretion, not to learn to PVP.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#318 - 2015-12-28 02:27:43 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
The problem with wars in eve is that while you can force non-NPC corps into war, you can't make its members fight. War decs are merely the warning signal used to either prepare, high tail it out of the way, or lose ships.


You also can't make the aggressing corp members fight their own war either.
There are many wardecs that go down to which the aggressor does not undock because the defender is well prepared.
In those cases the aggressor can still keep the wardec going, simply to annoy/slow down the defender, or in hopes to catch someone off guard.

The current mechanic is rarely used to actually engage in fights, but rather is used for ganks without concord response.
If the aggressor cannot pull off said ganks without a potential hostile response, they won't even attempt the gank; yet can still keep the war going even though they're unwilling to fight..
There are also those wars in which the defender intends to fight, so in response the aggressor drops the dec...

No one has to commit to the current mechanic. Therefore, in its current iteration, wardecs are more of a deterrent to PVP and player interaction than they are increasing them.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2015-12-28 02:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Joe Risalo wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
The problem with wars in eve is that while you can force non-NPC corps into war, you can't make its members fight. War decs are merely the warning signal used to either prepare, high tail it out of the way, or lose ships.


You also can't make the aggressing corp members fight their own war either.


Easy to fix. "CONCORD recognises your right to legal declaration of war against another corporation in high security space. However, upon the commencement of hostilities, members for neither corporation will be welcome in High Security stations due to the risk of collateral damage being so high. Any and all ships manned by capsuleers still in station at the commencement of hostilities will be forcibly towed out of the station they are in to the undock (if they're logged in - if they're logged out, ship will be removed from station the moment they log in)."

You can still use a POS, you can still dock on low and nul. For corporations that have a degree of commitment and competent leadership, and a reason to exist besides 'duh i want to be leader, look at me!' this won't be a problem to work with.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#320 - 2015-12-28 02:34:03 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:


He means reasons that hes ok with. Like how the sandbox means only playstyles hes ok with should be allowed.


You mean like defending a mechanic to which only one person can end, yet it's within a game that revolves around any situation being altered by any person, and exists within said sandbox?



Both sides are entirely capable of ending a wardec, through a variety of means. One of them being PVP, and crushing your enemy. If you choose not to learn PVP, that is not the fault of the wardec system, that is your CHOICE.


I can literally destroy everything the aggressor owns and it still has no pull on the war ending.
Not to mention, as I stated above, the aggressor doesn't even have to commit to their own war. This essentially means that even if I have the capability to overpower them, they will not engage any ship or fleet that would put them at risk, and instead wait to catch any unprepared ships.
This means that the defender's best options are don't play, quit Eve, drop corp, or heavily monitor local and stay aligned so you can warp out if any war targets come in.

The current mechanic favors ganks without CONCORD and avoidance over conflict.