These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Wardec Change Proposal

Author
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1 - 2016-09-13 19:12:07 UTC
Picking on the defenseless is a core part of EvE, wardecs are a great way to introduce risk to an otherwise riskless part of space. However, given that war-deccing does not really expose the deccers to all that much risk, the access to targets it grants you is basically reward without the risk to go along with it. Why not turn HiSec wars into WARS, and not just easy pickings?

Proposal

A)A citadel rig, Strategic War Office or something, in an anchored citadel in hisec, owned by an alliance or corp, is required to initiate a wardec.

B)There is no cost to declaring war. So long as you have an active citadel with such a rig, you may wardec everything under the sun.

C)If the citadel is destroyed, un-anchored, or the rig unfit, all wars in which the owner is the aggressor are immediately ended. The aggressor corp may not wardec for two weeks.

There. Now you can wardec to your heart's content, for FREE, provided you put one foot worth of commitment into your endeavor. ISK is always a poor way to balance things, now you literally can afford to dec as many people as you think you can actually fight.

This actually has great implications for the game - you could get a lot of interaction between groups that would never talk to each other and make EvE far more interconnected by basically rewarding corps in hisec for banding together against a common foe. As it is now, there's nothing solid to band against. It could be a great stepping stone for alliance formation. It could spur a lot of content.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2016-09-13 19:43:12 UTC
Bwahahahahaha, So even easier pickings for wardec corps?
Since their weekly bill of billions now becomes a maximum of 700 million every 3 weeks......
And since they are significantly larger than you know, pretty much all the corps they attack, they also get relative immunity since citadel attacks in highsec are pure blob fests since the structures defences are worthless in highsec.

Your right that this has great implications for Wardecs in highsec, it means Merc corps can grief everyone, not just only those who they think they can get shiny kills from. And that is terrible.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#3 - 2016-09-13 19:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
How would this help anyone in any way?

It would just further incentivize people who want to pursue wars as their main form of gameplay to form large groups, so they can defend their structure against whoever decides to ally in to their wars instantly and for free and for none of those groups to ever fight each other (wouldn't want to risk losing your citadel and having all of your gameplay turned off for two weeks).

Moreover the average highsec corp doesn't actually have the manpower to attack a defended citadel, even an Astrahus and the process takes such a long time that most wars would end naturally before a defender could even destroy a citadel.

Plus you'd be completely denying war related gameplay to everyone who doesn't both have a citadel and have their citadel rigged specifically for that purpose.

The increased financial burden to small aggressors caused by the 2500% increase in the base cost of wars introduced in Inferno as well as the increased risk of unilateral escalation by the defender introduced by the ally system already resulted in the trend of the formation of larger and larger war dec corps that blanket dec more and more groups simultaneously. The affect this change would have would be the same except far greater.

You'd have even bigger merc groups with even more wars and even fewer corps engaging in organic, low-level conflicts with each other over every day disputes.

Basically it would massively amplify the current problems with the general state of PVP in highsec.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#4 - 2016-09-13 19:58:07 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Moreover the average highsec corp doesn't actually have the manpower to attack a defended citadel, even an Astrahus and the process takes such a long time that most wars would end naturally before a defender could even destroy a citadel.


It's not about one corp. Some of my best times in this game were assembling fleets to fight off a threat, turning hated enemies into conditional allies, to fight off another group. Right now there is zero impetus to actually try and band together to fight them, because there is nothing to actually fight. New Eden as a whole is a game of, don't be the biggest guy on the block as you will draw aggro from the rest of the cluster. If there was an impetus to actually unite, something to rally around, rather than the ephemeral, ethereal wardeccers who will just dock, you might actually see some different behaviors.

ISK is a terrible way to balance it - of this we can probably almost all agree. It should be balanced with, bite off as much as you can chew and no more, or suffer the consequences. It should be a game of wardeccing as many as you can get away with - as your blanket gets too big, so to does your risk.

Say I run a WarDec Co. I see some nullbear alliance that i think will feed me JFs. I dec them for free. I see another one, and similarly this happens again. Eventually, someone in one of the decced alliances sees all the wars I have made, and begins uniting the clans. Now there's a social component on part of the decced people to rally, and something to actually rally against, hence an actually game of when and who to dec.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Plus you'd be completely denying war related gameplay to everyone who doesn't both have a citadel and have their citadel rigged specifically for that purpose.

Good. It's cheaper and stimulates the player economy more than sending ISK off into the nothingness.


Think of the stories that would unfold. Mercenaries would actually become more relevant - think of a small consortium of hisec bear companies hiring mercs to lead them vs a big war dec corp. The potential for interaction is HUGE, rather than just the doldrums of wardecs currently.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#5 - 2016-09-13 20:32:21 UTC
We are at comparatively little risk because we actively mitigate as much of it as we can.
Others are not because they do not, you can't patch incompetents.

I can see the story's now.
*Ralph sits in story time chair*
Once upon a time , the mercenaries banded together and put up some structures,
They left each other's structures alone because **** that
Except pirat, nobody liked them.

The end.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#6 - 2016-09-13 20:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Err, I'm not sure what kind of drugs you're taking but the system you describe would make it so that the only logical way to run a wardec group would be to be as large as possible to mitigate the risk of a large group taking down your citadel. Being the biggest guy on the block would be the optimal way to function.

The potential for interesting interaction would be less than there is currently because there would not only be less opportunity for aggression, since declaring war at all would literally be impossible for the vast majority of highsec corps to actually declare a war and the few that would could have their ability to declare war shut off by anyone who can field a larger fleet than them.

Small scale wars between people over random occurrences that actually have meaning to the involved parties simply would not exist at all since those groups would simply not have the required equipment. They're already extremely rare since declaring any war almost inevitably results in a large mercenary allying in to it for free. Small merc entities would not exist because the second they declared a war a larger merc group would destroy their citadel, preventing them from declaring any more wars. The only groups that would exist are large scale merc groups that declare large numbers of wars.

It would be taking the very option of war away from the majority of players while encouraging the very worst trends in highsec PVP.

The only people who would stand to benefit from it at all would be large entities who aren't generally interested in highsec PVP, but can field large fleets and would like the ability to turn off other peoples ability to declare war on them.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#7 - 2016-09-13 20:49:09 UTC
I like this idea better than usual shoot-beacon-end-war-and-earn-100%-safety proposal that comes up regularly here. Since the minimum amount of time to end a war is a little more than 7 days, it would allow an aggressor first crack at killing an opponent's structure before possibly losing their own and the war being terminated. I don't see the point of limiting the ability to declare war for two weeks if they lose but rather just make them deploy another citadel/target they have to defend.

It does hurt smaller entities though, both attackers and defenders and thus probably wars should be limited to only target other structure holding corps. As long as there were mechanisms to tie the value of structures to a specific corp to prevent hiding from wars behind alt corps, this might work. This would be a large change to the current situation though, probably with many pitfalls, but one I think worth exploring further.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#8 - 2016-09-13 21:19:05 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I don't see the point of limiting the ability to declare war for two weeks if they lose but rather just make them deploy another citadel/target they have to defend.


Losing a billion isk citadel doesn't really punish wardeccers for losing. Heck, losing a citadel a week is probably far cheaper than 300 simultaneous wardecs. If that clause were not added, all that would happen is a net reduction in the effective ISK/week one pays. While that is also a good thing, everyone wins more when there's more of a game to play on both sides.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#9 - 2016-09-13 21:33:00 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Err, I'm not sure what kind of drugs you're taking but the system you describe would make it so that the only logical way to run a wardec group would be to be as large as possible to mitigate the risk of a large group taking down your citadel. Being the biggest guy on the block would be the optimal way to function.

The potential for interesting interaction would be less than there is currently because there would not only be less opportunity for aggression, since declaring war at all would literally be impossible for the vast majority of highsec corps to actually declare a war and the few that would could have their ability to declare war shut off by anyone who can field a larger fleet than them.

Small scale wars between people over random occurrences that actually have meaning to the involved parties simply would not exist at all since those groups would simply not have the required equipment. They're already extremely rare since declaring any war almost inevitably results in a large mercenary allying in to it for free. Small merc entities would not exist because the second they declared a war a larger merc group would destroy their citadel, preventing them from declaring any more wars. The only groups that would exist are large scale merc groups that declare large numbers of wars.

It would be taking the very option of war away from the majority of players while encouraging the very worst trends in highsec PVP.

The only people who would stand to benefit from it at all would be large entities who aren't generally interested in highsec PVP, but can field large fleets and would like the ability to turn off other peoples ability to declare war on them.



So there's lots of truth in many of the things you describe, but that's what could make wardeccing more of a game (fun, variable outcome, plays on both sides, involves more people) rather than a scripted procedure. A small scale wars would still be perfectly viable - if you do not wardec the universe, the universe isn't coming to bust down your citadel, and big merc groups could not be bothered to deal with every small war if there were actually enough bigger wars to occupy themselves. Sort of like how PL is the eternal boogeyman, but even the boogie man can't be everywhere at once.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#10 - 2016-09-13 21:39:00 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
We are at comparatively little risk because we actively mitigate as much of it as we can.
Others are not because they do not, you can't patch incompetents.

I can see the story's now.
*Ralph sits in story time chair*
Once upon a time , the mercenaries banded together and put up some structures,
They left each other's structures alone because **** that
Except pirat, nobody liked them.

The end.



You can say 'actively mitigate' all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you have so many mechanics to lean on that there was never really all that much risk to begin with, and absolutely never a time when you are actually forced to commit to holding the field.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#11 - 2016-09-13 23:07:46 UTC
You say that war dec alliances dont have any risk, but I think otherwise. Most merc groups dont have structures to risk but neither do most of the corps amd alliances that get dec'd... And if they do have high sec structures its almost never about killing the structure.

What is to stop people from banding together right now with these blanket wardecs? Why would a citadel magically make this happen? It might, but using risk and citadels as an excuse to change wardecs doesnt make sense because of the fact that targets can band together with the current system.

Theres a lot at risk for war dec groups. The fact that baiting us into traps is laughably easy for most groups to fall victim to and the amount of isk we thrkw on our ships... Yeah we dont risk anything. The "problem" is that you have players that are too lazy or incompetent to defend themselves against groups that have extensive knowledge of hisec mechanics.

Can you imagine if all the major merc alliances joined together in a single alliance to defend a citadel? Market hubs would be shut down. Then wha?

I guess we could just take a page out of ye olde risk averse bear's book with the following scenario: we have to have a citadel to wardec. Citadel gets blown up and were locked out of wars for 2 weeks. We drop corp to a new alliance and WEEEEEEEEE! Were back at it again because 1.4b is meaningless.
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#12 - 2016-09-13 23:15:06 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
We are at comparatively little risk because we actively mitigate as much of it as we can.
Others are not because they do not, you can't patch incompetents.

I can see the story's now.
*Ralph sits in story time chair*
Once upon a time , the mercenaries banded together and put up some structures,
They left each other's structures alone because **** that
Except pirat, nobody liked them.

The end.



You can say 'actively mitigate' all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you have so many mechanics to lean on that there was never really all that much risk to begin with, and absolutely never a time when you are actually forced to commit to holding the field.

Give me a break. Lets see how much you know about hisec mechanics. Are you just parroting or can you actually list some that are exclusive to those that are the agressors?

If your issue is with not being forced to commit to holding the field then please allow us to use bubbles and capitals in hisec.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#13 - 2016-09-13 23:37:17 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
We are at comparatively little risk because we actively mitigate as much of it as we can.
Others are not because they do not, you can't patch incompetents.

I can see the story's now.
*Ralph sits in story time chair*
Once upon a time , the mercenaries banded together and put up some structures,
They left each other's structures alone because **** that
Except pirat, nobody liked them.

The end.



You can say 'actively mitigate' all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you have so many mechanics to lean on that there was never really all that much risk to begin with, and absolutely never a time when you are actually forced to commit to holding the field.

and absolutely every single one of them is available to our quarry , and ontop of this free allies , and ontop of that they can just literally drop the war at a moments notice without any repercussions whatsoever.

in future you could try to pretend to understand what mechanically is going on , it would do wonders for your credibility.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#14 - 2016-09-13 23:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Faylee Freir wrote:
You say that war dec alliances dont have any risk, but I think otherwise. Most merc groups dont have structures to risk but neither do most of the corps amd alliances that get dec'd... And if they do have high sec structures its almost never about killing the structure.


Whilst the rest of your post holds merit, this part was stupid. People are getting decced for their structures and have been for ages. Pocos have been switching hands everyday since they were introduced. And now with citadels people are fighting over the best market spots.

People have cottoned onto the fact that fighting over structures/objectives makes the most content, and it seems the null sec lot have cottoned onto how un-fun the game is when there is no way to strike back at an attackers assets and there is no reason to commit to a fight.

However with the way citadels work, attackers do have to commit as they cant just dock up unless they have rights. They can't engage off a citadel and then disengage to dock, they have to try and warp off if they aren't pointed. That on it's own goes a long way to solving the frustrations defenders have. Add to that how any wardec not over an objective is hard to maintain without watchlists (which I hope to god come back with observatories).

So having wardecs tied to a structure may not be necessary with what's coming. And i say that after making the thread in my sig.

Edit- i forgot to add, citadels defences are god damn beastly as well. And you can take as long as you want aligning out from them after undocking.

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

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#15 - 2016-09-13 23:54:57 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
You say that war dec alliances dont have any risk, but I think otherwise. Most merc groups dont have structures to risk but neither do most of the corps amd alliances that get dec'd... And if they do have high sec structures its almost never about killing the structure.


Whilst the rest of your post holds merit, this part was stupid. People are getting decced for their structures and have been for ages. Pocos have been switching hands everyday since they were introduced. And now with citadels people are fighting over the best market spots.

People have cottoned onto the fact that fighting over structures/objectives makes the most content, and it seems the null sec lot have cottoned onto how un-fun the game is when there is no way to strike back at an attackers assets and there is no reason to commit to a fight.

However with the way citadels work, attackers do have to commit as they cant just dock up unless they have rights. They can't engage off a citadel and then disengage to dock, they have to try and warp off if they aren't pointed. That on it's own goes a long way to solving the frustrations defenders have. Add to that how any wardec not over an objective is hard to maintain without watchlists (which I hope to god come back with observatories).

So having wardecs tied to a structure may not be necessary with what's coming. And i say that after making the thread in my sig.

Well youre right. Structures do get blown up in highsec, but you go look at how many decs my alliance has and i can tell you that were not bashing structures constantly everyday. My point is that Vic here is trying to say that theres something imbalanced in the risk of war decs when really there isnt.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#16 - 2016-09-14 02:27:18 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
in future you could try to pretend to understand what mechanically is going on , it would do wonders for your credibility.


Eh, I don't think you give me a whole lot of credit here. I think I understand a wee bit here.

Part of getting fights in this game is convincing the opponent they should take the fight or that it is worth it. You would stand to have a lot less wardec evasion if there was something they could actually attack and fight back at. Fighting hub campers with near perfect intel and the ability to dock up is about as engaging as dealing with cloaky campers. As it is, I don't blame people who evade wardecs: there is almost zero opportunity for it to turn into a good fight if the deccers play their cards right.

Yes attacking structures during a dec is risky - excellent, working as intended. This means it shouldn't be asking much for deccers to defend one for a few hours a week, in exchange for 100% free wardecs. An actual engaging way to end the war means people will have a lot more interesting in fighting back.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2016-09-14 02:58:50 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:


Theres a lot at risk for war dec groups. The fact that baiting us into traps is laughably easy for most groups to fall victim to and the amount of isk we thrkw on our ships...


^this

generally you only need to bait one and grab their shiny T3 and you can "win" the isk war unless your corp is really bad at watching local...



while i'm not against the idea of structure based war decs this is no where near the best proposed
Toxic Yaken
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#18 - 2016-09-14 03:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Toxic Yaken
Vic Jefferson wrote:

Proposal

A)A citadel rig, Strategic War Office or something, in an anchored citadel in hisec, owned by an alliance or corp, is required to initiate a wardec.

B)There is no cost to declaring war. So long as you have an active citadel with such a rig, you may wardec everything under the sun.

C)If the citadel is destroyed, un-anchored, or the rig unfit, all wars in which the owner is the aggressor are immediately ended. The aggressor corp may not wardec for two weeks.

There. Now you can wardec to your heart's content, for FREE, provided you put one foot worth of commitment into your endeavor. ISK is always a poor way to balance things, now you literally can afford to dec as many people as you think you can actually fight.


I've seen EVE University burn down PIRAT's poco empire, over a year ago I got to be part of an attempt to take over a Highsec island which led to the locals all banding together to fight us... I'd love to see more wars like that happening. The thing is, Highsec doesn't usually work this way. There are a lot of people who just want to keep to themselves and not engage in these kinds of things and will simply dock up or sit in an NPC corporation to avoid wars. I don't necessarily blame them either.

As was also pointed out, the proposed cost structure strongly favours further consolidation of Highsec wardeccers to mitigate the costs of setting up these wars. As soon as a war is lost, simply rollout a new corporation and start all over. Want to really **** people off? Set up those Citadels in the far corners of Highsec and make the defenders spend half the week looking for your citadel (if they even want to bother) while you continue to rake in the oblivious folks auto piloting through the trade pipes. Why even defend your citadel as an aggressor if you can cover your costs in loot from being at war with everyone not in an NPC corporation? How many times will a defender need to dumpster a wardec corp's citadel before they get tired of it because they just set up a new one far far away the next day?

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#19 - 2016-09-14 03:19:32 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
in future you could try to pretend to understand what mechanically is going on , it would do wonders for your credibility.


Eh, I don't think you give me a whole lot of credit here. I think I understand a wee bit here.

Part of getting fights in this game is convincing the opponent they should take the fight or that it is worth it. You would stand to have a lot less wardec evasion if there was something they could actually attack and fight back at. Fighting hub campers with near perfect intel and the ability to dock up is about as engaging as dealing with cloaky campers. As it is, I don't blame people who evade wardecs: there is almost zero opportunity for it to turn into a good fight if the deccers play their cards right.

Yes attacking structures during a dec is risky - excellent, working as intended. This means it shouldn't be asking much for deccers to defend one for a few hours a week, in exchange for 100% free wardecs. An actual engaging way to end the war means people will have a lot more interesting in fighting back.

You still have failed to explain what mechanics that agressors use that are exclusive to said party. Docking and agression timers are something that is universal and as such is a bad example. Your comments here lead me to believe that you have very minimal knowledge of even how a war dec group functions. Do all kills happen on undocks?

While im at it I seriously want you to start naming some mechanics that put the advantage in the agressors hands. Lets not forget that part.

So i assume that your alliance has been war dec'd before. How often have you came into hisec to directly fight your agressors? I ask this because if you have then you would know that even if someone is sitting on a station undock that you can lure them into a trap. See you seem to be saying that the defender is completely weak and helpless and the cards are stacked against them. In a lot of cases you are right, but thats only because of either choice or ignorance. My point is that having a Citadel isnt going to make people band together against it. Im sure it will happen from time to time but the players can already band together against any agressor they want.

See i dont believe you becsuse I dont think most people are interested in fighting back, and thats evident from how many fold their corp and make a new one. For the most part people want to be left alone to play their own version of eve online, which is a shame that they are playing an MMO in single player mode. Can you honestly tell me that your incursion runner in a vindy wouldnt fold his corp because he coukd have the chance of whoring on a 1b killmail?

We have the opportunity to defend structures all the time. What are you talking about?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#20 - 2016-09-14 05:55:57 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Losing a billion isk citadel doesn't really punish wardeccers for losing. Heck, losing a citadel a week is probably far cheaper than 300 simultaneous wardecs. If that clause were not added, all that would happen is a net reduction in the effective ISK/week one pays. While that is also a good thing, everyone wins more when there's more of a game to play on both sides.

Why should they be punished at all for losing? The whole point of this game is to try to attack each other, and build/gather stuff to facilitate those attacks. Why should people be dissuaded from trying?

And certainly it would punish a small, few-man corporation that dared to attack you. A billion+ ISK is a lot to ask of many small groups just to play the game. Perhaps the solution is scaling sizes of structures. Maybe a relatively cheaper Observatory Array could be used to declare war on one or a few other corps for use by smaller and non-professional corps, while corps that want to declare dozens of wars at a time like today's mercenary groups would need a Citadel.

You should not be able to earn complete safety for winning a fight. That stifles escalation and retaliation. Besides, it is completely unenforceable as if a group wants to pursue a continued campaign against you, they will just hop to another corp with another Citadel and resume attacking you and everyone else.
12Next page