These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#241 - 2016-01-21 22:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
[quote=Joe Risalo]

All you can really tell is how many wars had no fighting. Short of polling the defenders, any attribution of "why" there was no fighting is purely speculative.

We have data that can tell you what IS, but we don't have data that can tell you what ISN'T.


Agreed...
Unfortunately, there are several things that we can't determine without polling.

Did you attempt to fight back and/or did the aggressor meet your resistance?
Did you avoid fighting back due to risk aversion?
Did you avoid fighting back due to the nature of the mechanic?
Did you drop corp as a result of a wardec?
Did you quit game at any point as a result of a wardec?

Basically, any question that can be posed that ties human nature to the mechanic, cannot be determined through these numbers as long as there wasn't a kill.
IE, you'll never know how many defender fleets were formed, if the aggressor didn't respond.

If we changed the dec mechanic to something that gave the defender a means to an out through a relative 'win', it would show a lot more statistics when correlated with the current statistics; such as will more ships die, will more aggressors dec less, etc. etc. etc...

But, there in lies the problem... It would require actually changing the mechanic in order to determine if a change would make any difference.
My assumption is that it would, for the better (IE more KMs as a result of wars, and less dec bear corps(to be fair I look at them only slightly above pure carebear corps)), but it's also safe to assume that it would have no change or worse change.
No one is right, no one is wrong.. I say that because we are not Psychiatrists and eve if we were, we don't know the mental state of the Eve online community.. Thus we cannot predict the outcome, only assume.

Basically, this entire debate is filled with assumptions and speculations, and all the statistics we can find really won't provide any evidence as to what is wrong or right, and especially won't tell us if change would be good or bad.

If CCP decides to change it, we will find out... If not, we won't..
I have a feeling that it will likely change as some point in time (probably not for another year at least considering what they're working on now) based on all the changes they're making to present less risks.
Everything from the very first change to make HS safer to the upcoming safety features of Citadels (and to a point capital ship changes) seems to be geared towards things being just a bit safer. (Don't forget the SP trading)
They'll never remove wardecs (and I would cry foul if they did) but the route they have been taking would seem to suggest they will likely make a change that will make wardecs a bit more....... interactive?..... That's the best word that comes to mind because the wardecs themselves would likely not be safer, but provide the defender with a means in which to become safe from that individual group, if they engage in wardec and are successful in doing so.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#242 - 2016-01-24 19:15:39 UTC
I completly agree!
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec
Iain Cariaba
#243 - 2016-01-24 20:00:47 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
I completly agree!
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec

This is utter bull ****. If you can't handle a few people being able to shoot you in highsec, you have no business trying to go to nullsec where everyone is able to shoot you.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#244 - 2016-01-24 20:02:03 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
I completly agree!
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec

This is utter bull ****. If you can't handle a few people being able to shoot you in highsec, you have no business trying to go to nullsec where everyone is able to shoot you.


But Iain, bubble wrapping new players and preventing them from experiencing the reality of EVE will totally improve retention in any way shape or form!

What I want to know is why the carebears don't just show some honesty for once and just ask for Trammel. It's what they've been arguing for for years, so they might as well fess up and admit it.

"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
#245 - 2016-01-24 21:11:17 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
I completly agree!
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec


People who want safety in hi-sec will want safety in null sec.

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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#246 - 2016-01-24 21:24:34 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec

You're not the first to think this, but it wouldn't work.

If people are never exposed to danger, then they'll be totally unprepared for it, if they eventually faced it.

Nullsec isn't as stagnant as the stereotype often portrays. There is a lot of fighting going on and if a totally inexperienced highsec group decided to move to null to fight, having never experienced pvp before; they'd lose their ISK very quickly.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#247 - 2016-01-24 22:03:45 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
Add Will add, that a more "safe" hisec, would give new corp a chance to amass the resources and manpower needed to challenge the stagnant nulsec

You're not the first to think this, but it wouldn't work.

If people are never exposed to danger, then they'll be totally unprepared for it, if they eventually faced it.

Nullsec isn't as stagnant as the stereotype often portrays. There is a lot of fighting going on and if a totally inexperienced highsec group decided to move to null to fight, having never experienced pvp before; they'd lose their ISK very quickly.


Agreed. That being said, a mechanic in which the defender and aggressor actively try to avoid confrontation isn't going to help either.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#248 - 2016-01-24 22:16:51 UTC
Well as you clearly not read what I "said", I said more safe!
And if read through the thread , you will know I am for shift in balance between attack and defender,
Allowing the defender more equal fight, maybe more would be inclined to fight, making it more fun for everyone
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#249 - 2016-01-24 23:22:42 UTC
I will be the first to admit I no nullsec expert,
But looking at the map, very little seems to change!
And taking that nul sec ore prices nearly match the high sec ore,
It seems like little of great importance is happening!
Not like the old days, it seemed much more caotic

But migt be wrong
Thorian Baalnorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#250 - 2016-01-25 02:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorian Baalnorn
Note: I only read the first page.

OP: if you think one dec is bad, when your in a null alliance you are decced constantly by 3-6 corps or alliances. The wardec system is being abused by high sec gankers looking for easy targets without the fear of concord. So they dec null alliances hoping to catch people shopping and such. While we in null have ways to combat the problem, its still an abuse of the system. One of my current deccers has decced us for almost 2 months straight.

What i would suggest is:

1) All wardecs cost 250 mil to start.
2) All decs are 3 days. You may buy additional days at the following rate:
- day 4: 50 mil
- day 5: 100 mil
- day 6: 150 mil
- day 7: 200 mil
- day 8: 300 mil
- each additional day cost the previous day fee plus 100 mil

So to dec someone for 8 days would cost 1.05 bil isk.

3) You are allowed more than one dec, however each dec cost significantly more.
- 2nd dec = double all fees
- 3rd dec = triple all fees
- etc.

So to dec 3 alliances for 3 days would cost 1.5 bil to run them concurrently.

4) For every day you have a corp or alliance decced, you may not dec that corp or alliance again for twice as long. So if you dec " Miner's Inc." for 7 days, you are not allowed to dec them again for 14 days after the end of the dec.


War in real life is expensive, War in eve should be too and not just for null players, for everyone that engages in it. If wardeccers are that eager for pvp, they are welcome on roams into Null, Null residents will pvp up and down their back side like a window shade.

Sometimes you are the squirrel and sometimes you are the nut. Today, you are the nut and the squirrel is hungry.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#251 - 2016-01-25 02:51:56 UTC
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
The wardec system is being abused by high sec gankers looking for easy targets without the fear of concord.


That's not abuse. That's the very literal intended function of the mechanic, to get rid of Concord for a fee.

Sorry to tell you this, but you're not supposed to be safe in highsec.

"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.
Thorian Baalnorn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#252 - 2016-01-25 03:10:18 UTC
Yes its called high security because its dangerous *facepalm*. The system was intended to allow corps and alliances to have wars and not allow you to hide from those wars. You can of course hide in a NPC corp but that has tradeoffs. The system is abused in that it allows high sec wanna be pvpers to gank non combat ships without interference from concord. Its like welfare for eve.

Sometimes you are the squirrel and sometimes you are the nut. Today, you are the nut and the squirrel is hungry.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#253 - 2016-01-25 04:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Note: I only read the first page.

OP: if you think one dec is bad, when your in a null alliance you are decced constantly by 3-6 corps or alliances. The wardec system is being abused by high sec gankers looking for easy targets without the fear of concord. So they dec null alliances hoping to catch people shopping and such. While we in null have ways to combat the problem, its still an abuse of the system. One of my current deccers has decced us for almost 2 months straight.

What i would suggest is:

1) All wardecs cost 250 mil to start.
2) All decs are 3 days. You may buy additional days at the following rate:
- day 4: 50 mil
- day 5: 100 mil
- day 6: 150 mil
- day 7: 200 mil
- day 8: 300 mil
- each additional day cost the previous day fee plus 100 mil

So to dec someone for 8 days would cost 1.05 bil isk.

3) You are allowed more than one dec, however each dec cost significantly more.
- 2nd dec = double all fees
- 3rd dec = triple all fees
- etc.

So to dec 3 alliances for 3 days would cost 1.5 bil to run them concurrently.

4) For every day you have a corp or alliance decced, you may not dec that corp or alliance again for twice as long. So if you dec " Miner's Inc." for 7 days, you are not allowed to dec them again for 14 days after the end of the dec.


War in real life is expensive, War in eve should be too and not just for null players, for everyone that engages in it. If wardeccers are that eager for pvp, they are welcome on roams into Null, Null residents will pvp up and down their back side like a window shade.


Through all of the debate I have reached the conclusion that simply upping tha price would be a bad solution,
I like the structure solution better, where the attacker has to have a structure to maintain the war, and if lost any character that has participated in the can not participate in a new one against the defending corp for 30 days!

Giving the defender a possibility and motivation to fight back somehow
Starrakatt
Empire Assault Corp
Dead Terrorists
#254 - 2016-01-25 04:43:24 UTC
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Note: I only read the first page.


War in real life is expensive, War in eve should be too and not just for null players, for everyone that engages in it. If wardeccers are that eager for pvp, they are welcome on roams into Null, Null residents will pvp up and down their back side like a window shade.

Ah, a 'please make Hisec safer' whine. Another one. And yet, Nulsec groups always claim Hisec wars doesn't affect them...

CCP already tried the high cost angle, didn't work.

Join Celtic Anarchy!

Sneaky bastard.
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
#255 - 2016-01-25 08:05:05 UTC
Every corp over 10 people in empire gets decced into oblivion, and these newbies have to face station huggers at every hub in brick tank Proteus they have no chance of killing. and then you people wonder why your game is dying.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#256 - 2016-01-25 12:16:38 UTC
Gneeznow wrote:
Every corp over 10 people in empire gets decced into oblivion, and these newbies have to face station huggers at every hub in brick tank Proteus they have no chance of killing. and then you people wonder why your game is dying.
How many times does this myth have to be debunked in this thread?
CCP Rise wrote:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
At least once more it seems.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#257 - 2016-01-25 12:40:37 UTC
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Yes its called high security because its dangerous *facepalm*.


It's called high, not total.


Quote:
The system is abused in that it allows high sec wanna be pvpers to gank non combat ships without interference from concord. Its like welfare for eve.


That's not abuse. Those ships are supposed to die, just like everything else in the game, and if they can't be bothered to watch local for reds then why are they in a player corp to begin with.

"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.
#258 - 2016-01-25 12:43:23 UTC
Gneeznow wrote:
Every corp over 10 people in empire gets decced into oblivion, and these newbies have to face station huggers at every hub in brick tank Proteus they have no chance of killing. and then you people wonder why your game is dying.


Wrong on every count. And I do mean every, because everything you said here is as wrong as it could be. Seems like you didn't bother reading the data that Surrender Monkey was kind enough to parse for us in the previous page.

"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.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#259 - 2016-01-25 12:59:36 UTC
i miss hyper dunking, simply because it kept these whinges focused

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#260 - 2016-01-25 14:22:12 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Gneeznow wrote:
Every corp over 10 people in empire gets decced into oblivion, and these newbies have to face station huggers at every hub in brick tank Proteus they have no chance of killing. and then you people wonder why your game is dying.
How many times does this myth have to be debunked in this thread?
CCP Rise wrote:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
At least once more it seems.



This does not mean what you want to twist it to make it mean.

At the most basic level, it is political double speak.

Assertion: 'griefing' causes people to leave.
Statement: Those who stayed were more involved in social activity in the game.
Gankbear Takeaway: ruining the game experience for the largest demographic of the playerbase aids the game.

It says nothing about why the people who left leave. 100% of the people who leave could do so over 'griefing' and that statement could still be completely true and utterly misleading.