These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#361 - 2015-12-29 00:06:55 UTC
avoiding conflict because you are rich would be a horrible idea.

The rich never get decced or can dec whoever they want, the poor (and often new player) are as easy targets as ever or plain unable to dec older players. Add that to the fact that instead of players going out and putting in effort or taking risks to either get out of decs or just rub the aggressors nose in it, it instead adds an incentive to buy a few PLEX for dec immunity.

Why is it not a thousand times better to have the defenders spend their isks on other players and hiring them to defend them? More content, more immersion, more player interaction.

tbh, if a corp falls apart the moment its decced, it doesnt sound like much of a corp anyways. Perhaps they'd have been happier as a social corp :p

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
#362 - 2015-12-29 00:29:12 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
avoiding conflict because you are rich would be a horrible idea.

The rich never get decced or can dec whoever they want, the poor (and often new player) are as easy targets as ever or plain unable to dec older players. Add that to the fact that instead of players going out and putting in effort or taking risks to either get out of decs or just rub the aggressors nose in it, it instead adds an incentive to buy a few PLEX for dec immunity.

Why is it not a thousand times better to have the defenders spend their isks on other players and hiring them to defend them? More content, more immersion, more player interaction.

tbh, if a corp falls apart the moment its decced, it doesnt sound like much of a corp anyways. Perhaps they'd have been happier as a social corp :p


That I agree with... Though, I still feel there's nothing that could be said that would change my mind on allowing a defender for forcefully end the war (win) without the consent of the aggressor.

My hopes are the it would make the wardec mechanic more fun and engaging..

Likewise with your comment on a corp falling apart due to a wardec, an aggressor that can't fight well enough to retain their own war should not be allowed to continue said war.


I believe it was a blog my Mitanni that stated no one complains about the stronger entity overpowering weaker entities in null sec, yet people complain of stronger entities picking on weaker entities with wardecs.
With his comment here, I agree...
However, what he failed to elaborate on was that a weak entity can pick on much stronger entities and reduce the risk of loss in doing so. The war mechanic allows them to maintain free kills on their intended target within HS. This means they don't have to leave the security of HS in order to attack, yet can also pick and choose their targets based on vulnerability.

There's no crime in reducing risks, but the problem then becomes (as I've stated) that the best way of reducing risks on both sides becomes to avoid conflict all together.

The argument has also been made that taking the initiative as the defender can "win" you the war by destroying the aggressor/locking him out of getting kills.
Why then are there so many wardecs against large entities that we all know to be fully capable of fight back?
Hell, even Marmite, CODE, and other deccing entities receive incoming decs despite everyone knowing their capabilities.

It boils down to the fact that the aggressor doesn't even have to fight their own war. They can spend all their time on alts simply waiting for targets of opportunity and avoiding an actual fight at all costs.
While at the same time, the defender has no reason for fighting due to the aggressor always dictating when the war ends.

If I can beat you, then why doesn't the mechanic let me beat you?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#363 - 2015-12-29 00:59:41 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I still feel there's nothing that could be said that would change my mind on allowing a defender for forcefully end the war (win) without the consent of the aggressor.

On the flip side, I'm glad at this stage that CCP don't currently share your view.

There are lots of problems with the current wardec mechanics and I wish I was able to come up with a workable alternative that gives more meaning to a war, while still allowing freedom of aggression in highsec for people that don't want to gank.

Unfortunately I can't, but I'm definitely glad CCP don't allow a defender to force an end to a war without the attackers consent. The current "close Corp" mechanics already achieve that in a very poor way (poor for both parties).
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2015-12-29 01:34:43 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I still feel there's nothing that could be said that would change my mind on allowing a defender for forcefully end the war (win) without the consent of the aggressor.

On the flip side, I'm glad at this stage that CCP don't currently share your view.

There are lots of problems with the current wardec mechanics and I wish I was able to come up with a workable alternative that gives more meaning to a war, while still allowing freedom of aggression in highsec for people that don't want to gank.

Unfortunately I can't, but I'm definitely glad CCP don't allow a defender to force an end to a war without the attackers consent. The current "close Corp" mechanics already achieve that in a very poor way (poor for both parties).


Well, you're not going to convince them to fight the war without an incentive.
The only incentive most are willing to fight for is the ability to end the war...

As far as CCP's beliefs on the war mechanics, they keep it hush hush as they can't even come to an agreement within CCP that was depicted in 2012...
Fozzie has spoken on how he feels there should be more meaning in wars and risks on the attacker, while Rise would like claim (just a hunch) that the system is fine and/or needs to favor the aggressor more.

Honestly, the fact that 70-80% of wars (CCP's numbers) end with zero kills, only goes to show that there is a problem with the current system.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#365 - 2015-12-29 02:18:57 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Well, you're not going to convince them to fight the war without an incentive.
The only incentive most are willing to fight for is the ability to end the war...

There is nothing about the wardec system that has to convince anyone to fight a war.

That's not what it's for. It's to allow someone to shoot someone else without CONCORD or Crimewatch consequences. It achieves that.

If the other guys don't want to fight, so what? That can just as easily be a successful outcome for someone's objective.

These threads often focus on the Marmites, P I R A T and other dedicated mercenary groups and claim that clubbing seals is bad.

They rarely consider that the wardec system can be used in other ways to, even for the reasons they think will be created, and the changes suggested often serve to make it harder for groups to go to war. That's not a good outcome; and baby seals don't exist in Eve. Everyone already has the tools they need to fight back. They just refuse to use them, whether by directly fighting or metagaming. That's their choice.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#366 - 2015-12-29 02:55:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Giving defenders the chance to end the war through effort is not necessarily an incentive to fight. It is more an option where the defenders can choose to pit themselves against the aggressors and possibly succeed in ending hostilities sooner. Its an option that some would jump at the chance to have a go and would find more fun and engaging than station games. Some players are already willing and ready to fight, but when they turn up, the wardeccers dock up/log off, leaving the defenders holding their dicks in their hands for a week.

Others who dont want to defend themselves can continue to do everything they do now and there would be absolutely no difference.

Its often said that 'if you're not willing to defend your playstyle you dont deserve it' and 'if you cant do it on your own, make friends. get help'. I dont see the problem with applying these rules to wardeccers as well.

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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#367 - 2015-12-29 03:01:16 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I've never been in charge of a corp and actually probably never been on the attacker side of a wardec so I'll just ask. Technically, you can disband/leave corp?

So can the defender though, so if that's considered a way to 'end a war', then both sides can do it.
Assuming for the moment that the corps are actually fighting over something, then that is a victory for whichever side is left. And once we get assets in space like Citadels that can't dodge a wardec, that provides something to fight over.

As for giving defenders the ability to end a war by fighting, I restate what i said before, are you prepared for attackers to be able to force the defenders to pay surrender payments in return. If one side can end a war early by fighting, both sides need to be able to end the war early by fighting.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#368 - 2015-12-29 03:11:43 UTC
And what would your suggestion be?

Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day.

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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#369 - 2015-12-29 03:43:06 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
And what would your suggestion be?

Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day.

Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way.
So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.

But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender....
And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#370 - 2015-12-29 04:26:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way.
So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.

But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender....
And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.


No problem with the surrender option.
Many corps do surrender.

However, often times the longer a wardec lasts and the defender doesn't fall apart, the more likely they are to get a surrender payout.

So, it either happens early on, or after a long while...
Which is subject to change...

Point is, it doesn't matter the likelihood of when they'll surrender, it's more about the likelihood that your target will surrender at all.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#371 - 2015-12-29 04:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
And what would your suggestion be?

Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day.

Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way.
So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.

But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender....
And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.
No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.

All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#372 - 2015-12-29 10:16:24 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.

All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection.

It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost.
I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk
Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender.

Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#373 - 2015-12-29 12:55:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
And what would your suggestion be?

Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day.

Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way.
So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.

But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender....
And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.


And hows that supposed to work? if i think im about to lose, or get wardecced at all, i just empty the corp wallet. Trying to say ending decs early is a bad idea because your unworkable version doesnt work is what's silly.

If you think wardeccers are getting less war dec for their isk then lower costs or make them last two weeks instead. If you think they are biased against the defender, then level the playing field with allies. But you choose instead to make a stroppy ******** argument?

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
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#374 - 2015-12-29 20:42:37 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


As for giving defenders the ability to end a war by fighting, I restate what i said before, are you prepared for attackers to be able to force the defenders to pay surrender payments in return. If one side can end a war early by fighting, both sides need to be able to end the war early by fighting.


Completely unnecessary.

The deccer started the war. They can finish it by letting it play out for the week and 'win' it by damaging the other side more and/or having their structure remain intact.

Alternatively they can end it simply by asking for a truce, and if the party they decced agrees it ends.

Why should CCP keep catering to the sorts of people that probably ought to be in prison in real life.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2015-12-29 21:15:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.

All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection.

It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost.
I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk
Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender.

Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is.
So wait, the attacker pays for a penalty to put towards the defender, and that's balanced, but giving the defender the ability to negate that negative isn't?

I suppose if you consider the wardec cost an entitlement to something that can't be lost that makes sense, but considering there isn't a single other thing in game that works like that it makes the mechanics surrounding paying for an immutable wardec the unbalanced outlier.

Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them. Giving defenders a means to do so introduces balance, and as such doesn't need counterbalanced.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#376 - 2015-12-29 21:31:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.

All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection.

It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost.
I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk
Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender.

Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is.
So wait, the attacker pays for a penalty to put towards the defender, and that's balanced, but giving the defender the ability to negate that negative isn't?

I suppose if you consider the wardec cost an entitlement to something that can't be lost that makes sense, but considering there isn't a single other thing in game that works like that it makes the mechanics surrounding paying for an immutable wardec the unbalanced outlier.

Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them. Giving defenders a means to do so introduces balance, and as such doesn't need counterbalanced.


It doesn't need counterbalanced, but at the same time it does.

Giving the defender a means a which to forcefully end aggression is a necessity for balance, however, the ally mechanic was a back handed attempt at providing the defender with options.
HOWEVER, in removing the ally mechanic, you then allow the aggressor to overwhelm their targets by heavily out numbering them so they can never reach the structure. So, this must than be counter balanced.
The best way to do this is through costs.
Base cost would be 50 or 100 mil... Then, the aggressor would pay an additional 20 mil per member they outnumber the target corp by. This also means that it's less costly to wardec large alliances, unless you outnumber them which isn't likely.

Point is, there's still a lot of balance that would need to be done not only to balance the mechanic, but also to balance the balance, in order to make a more fun and engaging mechanic.

The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2015-12-29 22:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Joe Risalo wrote:
It doesn't need counterbalanced, but at the same time it does.

Giving the defender a means a which to forcefully end aggression is a necessity for balance, however, the ally mechanic was a back handed attempt at providing the defender with options.
HOWEVER, in removing the ally mechanic, you then allow the aggressor to overwhelm their targets by heavily out numbering them so they can never reach the structure. So, this must than be counter balanced.
The best way to do this is through costs.
Base cost would be 50 or 100 mil... Then, the aggressor would pay an additional 20 mil per member they outnumber the target corp by. This also means that it's less costly to wardec large alliances, unless you outnumber them which isn't likely.

Point is, there's still a lot of balance that would need to be done not only to balance the mechanic, but also to balance the balance, in order to make a more fun and engaging mechanic.

The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it.
Personally I'd say if the ally mechanic were to remain in place alongside a war goal it should a) be limited to 1 ally, period and b) should cost the greater of either the cost of the dec against the corp seeking help or the cost that would be incurred by decing that ally.

Applying another group to the war should be comparable to declaring another war since that's essentially what it is.

That specific aside, the mechanic itself at it's core hasn't changed for all the behaviors the details have created in one form or another. Dogpiling needs fixed to allow meaningful combat potential between small entities and cost logic likely needs revised amongst other things. That said the basic mechanic still has that one central glaring imbalance that IMHO trumps and in some cases justifies the other issues wars as a whole have.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#378 - 2015-12-29 22:59:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them.


That's not unbalanced.

You don't have to "defend" your ability to mine, or mission, or trade. You just get it, because those are supported and intended playstyles. Just like wars.

You can shackle my playstyle to a useless structure when yours is shackled to one first.

"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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#379 - 2015-12-29 23:04:31 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it.

Sure and this could be done very easily, much more easily than the proposal in this thread.

1. Remove CONCORD
2. Remove wardecs

Job done.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2015-12-29 23:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them.


That's not unbalanced.

You don't have to "defend" your ability to mine, or mission, or trade. You just get it, because those are supported and intended playstyles. Just like wars.

You can shackle my playstyle to a useless structure when yours is shackled to one first.
Actually yes, I do. Well that or evade any aggression. Or just lose that capacity as soon as someone wants to take it. And that's just it. The moment someone wants to take it I lose it or have to respond. Period. Wardecs on the other hand? Unlike the person wanting to take my ability to mine or mission, or interfere with my trades for whatever reason, I have no means to deprive them of a war they've declared against me.

Anyone who claims those activities don't need defended while having suggested people fit smart, scout routes, be aware of their surroundings and have help moving large ships is being less than genuine when it suits them.