These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Wardec rebalance reviewed

Author
Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#1 - 2016-11-03 09:34:10 UTC
Wardec in the current incarnation, has not changed is the start of EVE,
it’s has never been a good system,
it has mainly been used as cheap and easy way to engage in what is basicly grief play!
I am not say that has not been wars, with meaningful narrative, but the a few and far apart!!
some the problems with current system is that on incentives for defender to fight,
which leads to tactic that they either dock up for the duration of the war or jump out of the corporation to another corp or an NPC corp!


I think by changing the wardec to being a structure based system,
where you have to ingame structure that can killed,
limiting the range of the wardec from EVE wide to a maximum range of region
and lastly adding win conditions for the defender!


the rules i propose, is that there a structure that carries the wardec, a wardec tower!
that tower has to placed in the area that is going affect,
and should have a maximum range of region,
the tower should have a vulnerability period each day set the attacker from 0 to 6 hours,
and a war period, the period where the war is in effect of 0 to 24 hours,
the relation between the 2 is that for each hour of vulnerability you set for your tower,
you have 4 hours of war effect, and of course the vulnerability must set within war period!
this is done each of the day of the week!
The tower should be able to carry multiple wars at the same time, but all the wars must share the same range, and periods of vulnerability/war!
If the Tower is lost, the aggressors, with that i mean any character that has been a member of the corp during the war, for any period of time, is prohibited from participating in an new war against any corp that the Tower carried for a full 30 days!


on a note, the tower should not have a reinforced period, and be destroyed in a single session, but should have enough HP, to give the owner time to respond!

give me feedback on what you think, but plz keep it civil!
I will personally disregard any comments that rude, as simple whining!


Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-11-03 09:40:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?

None? Didn't think so.

You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

My Dream
Doomheim
#3 - 2016-11-03 09:58:42 UTC
the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p
Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#4 - 2016-11-03 10:03:16 UTC
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf,
just look at the rampart rate of wardec now, which 99,9% carries no meaning,
and does little else than annoy, which i think is bad, and that war i eve should be 2 sided thing with something to gain for either side!
are the idea i have proposed perfect, probably not!
but you can come with some suggestion how we may improve it? :)
how you think it might be better and more engaging!


and thanks for opinion! :)


Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
And what advantage for wardeccers are you proposing to balance for these nerfs to their play?

None? Didn't think so.

You don't like a style if play so you propose nerfs to it to suit you better. Typical Carebears thinking.

Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#5 - 2016-11-03 10:06:05 UTC
I like the spirit in you idear, but i think it will be really hard implement in a reasonable way!
i would like to see a suggestion how that could be done! :)


My Dream wrote:
the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#6 - 2016-11-03 10:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
I think it's worth starting here:

http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/

There's a lot to like in the article and proposed changes are balanced: propose a structure, but give it watchlist and locator capabilities.

Something for both sides.

The Roundtable is worth listening to also.

Any proposal that just takes a grrr wardeccer approach is probably never going to fly with CCP. They like conflict.

Changes sure. But balanced, not one sided nerfs to agressors that serve only to make things safer for defenders and/or give defenders advantages by applying more burden on attackers. That's what this current proposal looks like.
My Dream
Doomheim
#7 - 2016-11-03 10:17:33 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
I like the spirit in you idear, but i think it will be really hard implement in a reasonable way!
i would like to see a suggestion how that could be done! :)


My Dream wrote:
the conquerer should be forced to bring the conquered corp into there alliance . very few ganker alliances would go down the wardec route if suddenly they had 300 care bears or new bros to protect after a win lol. corp v corp conflict a new alliance is formed =p



well the problem with my idea is it infringes on player freedom to join an alliance and leave with free will . so i guess it would never work in eve sadly , and also it would form massive powerblocks and destroy the vision you can achieve meaningfull things as a little guy

my idea needs a single player game not an mmo like eve tbh =)
Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#8 - 2016-11-03 10:25:44 UTC
I think the idea of some sort of watch list would be a good idea, but it should limit to it,
like a notice when a player enters the area affected by the war!


and thanks for you input!


Scipio Artelius wrote:
I think it's worth starting here:

http://crossingzebras.com/war-what-is-it-good-for/

There's a lot to like in the article and proposed changes are balanced: propose a structure, but give it watchlist and locator capabilities.

Something for both sides.

The Roundtable is worth listening to also.

Any proposal that just takes a grrr wardeccer approach is probably never going to fly with CCP. They like conflict.

Changes sure. But balanced, not one sided nerfs to agressors that serve only to make things safer for defenders and/or give defenders advantages by applying more burden on attackers. That's what this current proposal looks like.

Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#9 - 2016-11-03 10:29:08 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf

War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?)

Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#10 - 2016-11-03 10:36:12 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf

War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?)

Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest.

Yeah this.

There is nothing about a war that should require it in the mechanics to be symmetrical and fair, for one side or the other.

If defenders want to win, or want to just get on with the game, there are already mechanics that support that. We don't need more nerfs of wardeccers play styles. They are just as entitled to their form of play as anyone else and New Eden should always have risk no matter where.
Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#11 - 2016-11-03 10:50:32 UTC
i agree i don't see, it from the wardec'kers view, and would like to get detailed view on that!
from my point of view i see a rampant wardec i high sec that a "random" and driven for the same reason pll gank low level and easy targets in other MMO, ai greif play! and i think !
but a again i am limited by only be able to observer the world from own point fo view! :)


Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf

War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?)

Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest.

My Dream
Doomheim
#12 - 2016-11-03 11:01:39 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
you are right i do think that the aggressors side of the wardec system needs a nerf

War decs have suffered several nerfs in a row, the last of which forced many wardec groups to fold. ("workaround," what are this?)

Turning wars into capture-the-flag will surely end the rest.

Yeah this.

There is nothing about a war that should require it in the mechanics to be symmetrical and fair, for one side or the other.

If defenders want to win, or want to just get on with the game, there are already mechanics that support that. We don't need more nerfs of wardeccers play styles. They are just as entitled to their form of play as anyone else and New Eden should always have risk no matter where.


your points are valid but dont forget this veiw infringes on the sandbox players right to play in a peacefull social way

many social corps get ganked and the players quit because the gankers gameplay choice means they cant get on with there choice of sandbox mode

if eves truely a sandox then it should provide a home for all types of player
Echo Mande
#13 - 2016-11-03 11:23:20 UTC
Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#14 - 2016-11-03 12:37:59 UTC
Mood Shinkou
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2016-11-03 12:48:25 UTC
Well I agree that 99% of wardecks have no purpose other than ganking in high sec.

Most wardeckers are the biggest cowards when it comes to actually fighting. But I dont really see the need to change anything.

EVE is a pvp game and you should play it that way.

If you want to avoid wardeckers...move to 0.0 or WH space. Those gankers never leave high&low sec. It is safer and more rewarding (and more fun).

The only bad issue in that the wardeck mechanics does not protect the new players making a new corp.

If you just want to do missions, mining, ratting and exploring without anyone interferring....you picked the wrong game.

This is a mmo...a pvp mmo, a survival game where you rise or fall.

- Mood
Black Pedro
Mine.
#16 - 2016-11-03 12:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Echo Mande wrote:
Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start.
I am not sure exactly what this "griefing tool" meme is that is so popular to bandy about these days. All of Eve is about competing with, and often thwarting the goals of the other guy (AKA "griefing" them). CCP does not hide this nor claim otherwise, and even used this idea as the tag line to the last expansion: Build Your Dreams; Wreck Their Dreams. When two people are playing a game and have conflicting goals, one of them is likely going to be frustrated and come to "grief" as they lose out to the other player.

Wars have a simple purpose in Eve, as stated in the Inferno wardec devblog which is to "allow people to fight legally in hi sec" and that is what they do. It is not "griefing" to pick a fight with another group in Eve, as was explicitly stated in the previous version of the support page:

CCP wrote:
What is grief play?

A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.

This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.


The emphasis is mine. You are not suppose to be able to make yourself completely safe or isolate yourself from attack by the other players in New Eden. This idea that someone who declares war on you is "griefing" you is completely at odds with the fundamental design of this full-time, competitive PvP sandbox game. Do that many people really not understand what type of game they are playing?

As to the OP, I have supported both the idea of moving towards a structure-based wardec system, and of wardec-immune social corps, but I can assure you that neither of these ideas will appear as the neutered, "capture the flag", gimmick you are proposing. You will also not be given "safety" as a reward for defending yourself. You are not intended to be immune from the other players, especially if you have formed or joined a corporation, the competitive unit of this game.

If you understand this, the reasons for past design decisions, and the future changes that are possible and consistent with the overall vision of Eve Online will be much clearer to you.
Commissioner Omerla
New Eden Protection Service
#17 - 2016-11-03 13:14:08 UTC
I've heard the debate from both sides many times, and seen the power of the dreaded "wardec" first hand. What I can say is that for a newer player there is literally zero reason they should experience a hisec war because some alliance is content starved. However, on the flipside - EVE is a dangerous place and should always be respected for the hazards which can rear their head.

The most common retorts to this are:

1.) When you undock you consent to PVP
2.) Newer players who get into wars/ganked are more likely to stick around
3.) "git gud, skrub"
4.) Without wars you cannot effectively engage in PVP combat whilst in hisec



The carebear says:

1.) I just want to be left alone!
2.) I lost my hulk, my covetor and, a procurer in the same day. I'm going to play WoW where I can choose my server type.
3.) I'm literally a two week old character, what do you expect when you drop on industrialists in T2 and T3s?
4.) Every time I go through Uedema I get ganked by a fleet of CODE who literally camp the system 24/7.



My main arguments in favor:

1.) Never assume that you're safe, you'll find yourself surprised more often than not.
2.) I can personally verify that out of a sample size of approximately 100, this is only 30-40% true. It really depends on the pilot.
3.) You can't expect everyone to inject their new toon/alt to the skill ceiling required to effectively counter a war-target drop.
4.) PVP will never die, regardless of security status. That being said, hisec doesn't mean you're safer by any measure.



My argument against the system:

1.) You're right! Undocking means I've consented to PVP, but that doesn't mean I'm asking to get waxed by a 40+ catalyst fleet.
2.) It can drive a player to decide consensual PVP wasn't what they had envisioned. Causing them to leave, likely forever.
3.) Don't give me a reason to log my main, really though. Those things don't end well.
4.) Design a system where people can hire "NPC Mercs" which will act as active security. Now the war system is balanced.





For those who are wondering, I use wars as a very active part of my business and it would likely effect me negatively to have the system changed drastically. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten my first wardec and how helped put me on my path to success, but remember that if that war had broken me... I wouldn't be here to continue the cycle.

That doesn't mean that I think the system is designed with balance in mind, and the little guy will always suffer. How do I know this? I can assure you that over the years, and across my accounts... I've caused more people to quit this game than any single ganker ever will. The reason behind this is because I am the one who signs the death warrant and directs the intelligence report to the mercenary team which is tasked with the kill.

Why am I able to do this with such ease? The true reason is because CCP never decided that a 1000+ pilot alliance directly declaring war on an corp of say ten players who primarily mine/explore/mission would adversely effect the community, or populace as a whole. Well guess what? Those 5-15 miners disband their corp, and generally around 70% of the corp stops playing their toon entirely. You might say: "Wow, those are really high ratios, they must be inflated." and to this all I can say is, just as a marriage broker arranges for two people to be wed in matrimony, I arrange the most effective and efficient match between the corp on the receiving end of the wardec, and the mercs who will receive their pay from my clientele.



tl:dr

If I can destroy your corporation/alliance/illusion of pilot safety overnight... Anyone else out there with enough connections could as well. When alpha clone states are released, my contract volume will either explode beyond my level of management or CCP will have to find a alternative to letting people like me authorize 800 gankalysts on a corporation to be used over a period of less than 2 months. Let me assure you, that corp will stop logging/close their doors, on average after the 40th kill.
Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#18 - 2016-11-03 13:26:26 UTC
i disagree on 3 points
1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh
2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games
3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike!


Black Pedro wrote:
Echo Mande wrote:
Personally I think that the current wardec mechanism needs a total rethink. As things stand in highsec, wardecs seem to be mostly used as griefing tools. A hard cap on the number of current and pending wars would probably be a good place to start.
I am not sure exactly what this "griefing tool" meme is that is so popular to bandy about these days. All of Eve is about competing with, and often thwarting the goals of the other guy (AKA "griefing" them). CCP does not hide this nor claim otherwise, and even used this idea as the tag line to the last expansion: Build Your Dreams; Wreck Their Dreams. When two people are playing a game and have conflicting goals, one of them is likely going to be frustrated and come to "grief" as they lose out to the other player.

Wars have a simple purpose in Eve, as stated in the Inferno wardec devblog which is to "allow people to fight legally in hi sec" and that is what they do. It is not "griefing" to pick a fight with another group in Eve, as was explicitly stated in the previous version of the support page:

CCP wrote:
What is grief play?

A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.

This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.


The emphasis is mine. You are not suppose to be able to make yourself completely safe or isolate yourself from attack by the other players in New Eden. This idea that someone who declares war on you is "griefing" you is completely at odds with the fundamental design of this full-time, competitive PvP sandbox game. Do that many people really not understand what type of game they are playing?

As to the OP, I have supported both the idea of moving towards a structure-based wardec system, and of wardec-immune social corps, but I can assure you that neither of these ideas will appear as the neutered, "capture the flag", gimmick you are proposing. You will also not be given "safety" as a reward for defending yourself. You are not intended to be immune from the other players, especially if you have formed or joined a corporation, the competitive unit of this game.

If you understand this, the reasons for past design decisions, and the future changes that are possible and consistent with the overall vision of Eve Online will be much clearer to you.

Lann Shahni
Crescent Eclipse
#19 - 2016-11-03 13:31:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
I simple thought, a lot the high sec "PVP" players say they are doing for the PVP content!
why not go low/nul or WH? you are more less ensurede to get into pvp battles there?
free of spending isk on wardec!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#20 - 2016-11-03 13:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Lann Shahni wrote:
i disagree on 3 points
1. i do not propose an end to war in high, just rebalancingto make it more fun and enging, giving both sides a reason to fitgh
2. greif play/bulling shuld never be supportet any where real life og games
3. eve is sandbox, with pvp elements, not a PVP sandbox, and there should be palce for every one play, PVP and PVE alike!
You proposed making war into a silly game where players shoot each other's structures for no other reason but to earn safety from each other's attacks. I don't see how that makes for better game play for anyone.

Grief play is explicitly banned as described in the quote I provided. It is against the EULA and not allowed. It so happens, that non-consensual wars are not considered "griefing" by CCP and are part of the game. If you don't like that, the problem is with you not the game.

And no, CCP says "[t]he essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." (p.22) There is no place for pure PvE gameplay and never has been for the last 13 years.

I think the only problem here is your expectations. Eve Online is not the game you think it is or wish it to be.
123Next pageLast page