These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Highsec Wardec Mechanics

Author
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#21 - 2016-11-21 16:21:51 UTC
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#22 - 2016-11-21 17:32:38 UTC
Agondray wrote:
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.



That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.


As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#23 - 2016-11-21 18:05:45 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Agondray wrote:
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.



That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.


As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part.

command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#24 - 2016-11-21 18:13:55 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Agondray wrote:
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.



That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.


As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part.

command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him



Yeah but that particular can opener is illegal in HS.

I deeply believe that repping through and aggression timer (local or remote) shouldn't be a thing in eve. I would prefer that if you commit an aggression in a docking ring or within jump range of a gate - you have to leave grid and then return before you can dock/jump. I think that would add a delicious level of commitment to a lot of engagements. It would be the shipbuilding stimulus that would make New Eden great again.
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#25 - 2016-11-21 19:05:08 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Avoiding the term "griefing" is difficult to do, but since there's a mechanic designed specifically to allow players to do this, it's hard to say it's a violation of the EULA.





It's not hard, it's super easy to say - categorically - "It's not a violation"

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#26 - 2016-11-21 19:39:13 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Agondray wrote:
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.



That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.


As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part.

command desies need a targeted script, so you can drag one guy (probably russian) off the undock by the scruff of his neck and bate seven shades of shite out of him



Yeah but that particular can opener is illegal in HS.

I deeply believe that repping through and aggression timer (local or remote) shouldn't be a thing in eve. I would prefer that if you commit an aggression in a docking ring or within jump range of a gate - you have to leave grid and then return before you can dock/jump. I think that would add a delicious level of commitment to a lot of engagements. It would be the shipbuilding stimulus that would make New Eden great again.

I agree to a point, station games can **** right off as far as I'm concerned.
I do think using gates to split up bigger gangs is fine though,
it's not difficult to counter someone deagressing to GTFO, just have the tackle pull off and jump ahead.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2016-11-21 20:14:22 UTC
If you want to fix blanket wars you need to give the wardec alliances something to help compensate for the loss of watchlists. It's really that simple. Wardecs are just a way to get content, like anything else people do in this game, from gate camping, to rage rolling, poking pocos, baiting, or just yoloing through heavily populated systems. Wardec alliances have to spam wars now because there's really no way of knowing when players are online anymore, making pipe and trade hub camping with blanket decs their only viable choice. You could overhaul dec costs or implement cooldowns etc, but you've got to give them a reason and a method to get out into space to hunt players down. Other proposals, like the OPs, will just kill highsec war alliances and snuff out another variety of gameplay.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#28 - 2016-11-21 20:21:16 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
If you want to fix blanket wars you need to give the wardec alliances something to help compensate for the loss of watchlists. It's really that simple. Wardecs are just a way to get content, like anything else people do in this game, from gate camping, to rage rolling, poking pocos, baiting, or just yoloing through heavily populated systems. Wardec alliances have to spam wars now because there's really no way of knowing when players are online anymore, making pipe and trade hub camping with blanket decs their only viable choice. You could overhaul dec costs or implement cooldowns etc, but you've got to give them a reason and a method to get out into space to hunt players down. Other proposals, like the OPs, will just kill highsec war alliances and snuff out another variety of gameplay.

Rubbish.
The Wardec alliances were doing spam wars before watchlists got removed. The removal barely affected the trade hub campers. It's the small merc alliances that got affected.
Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping.

Though I do agree that locator agents should give you online/offline status so there is some way of doing it.

But making high sec corps more meaningful starts to create a lot more reason to hunt players to begin with since those players have a geographic location and more consistent operations. People are trying to solve this with a stick, not a carrot when a carrot is what is needed. CCP need to stop the nerfing of high sec structures, if they are vulnerable to a wardec give them the same stats in all areas of space, then strip stations from highsec to create a lot more need for your own structure. At that point you will see significant high sec corps operating in small areas from their own structures, which then give you wardec targets in space.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#29 - 2016-11-21 21:25:09 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
TL/DR: Make the aggressors in highsec wars go suspect when they shoot the defenders to allow people to third-party wars on behalf of the defenders.


They're not doing anything illegal. In fact, they're doing something that CONCORD has explicitly sanctioned. Why would that cause them to go suspect?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2016-11-21 21:45:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Rubbish.
The Wardec alliances were doing spam wars before watchlists got removed. The removal barely affected the trade hub campers. It's the small merc alliances that got affected.
Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping.


The claim was not that removal of the watchlist is what caused wardec spamming, but that it is not about the only viable strategy. Hence the increase in its prevalence.

You are arguing against a strawman.

Frankly, I don't know why people are so upset with this. If you get decced stay out of the trade hubs and off the trade lanes and you can very easily minimize your risk of having to fight during a war dec to near zero.

Stop the whining...those who don't want PvP actually got what they wanted.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#31 - 2016-11-21 21:55:55 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
If you want to fix blanket wars you need to give the wardec alliances something to help compensate for the loss of watchlists. It's really that simple. Wardecs are just a way to get content, like anything else people do in this game, from gate camping, to rage rolling, poking pocos, baiting, or just yoloing through heavily populated systems. Wardec alliances have to spam wars now because there's really no way of knowing when players are online anymore, making pipe and trade hub camping with blanket decs their only viable choice. You could overhaul dec costs or implement cooldowns etc, but you've got to give them a reason and a method to get out into space to hunt players down. Other proposals, like the OPs, will just kill highsec war alliances and snuff out another variety of gameplay.

Rubbish.
The Wardec alliances were doing spam wars before watchlists got removed. The removal barely affected the trade hub campers. It's the small merc alliances that got affected.
Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping.

Though I do agree that locator agents should give you online/offline status so there is some way of doing it.

But making high sec corps more meaningful starts to create a lot more reason to hunt players to begin with since those players have a geographic location and more consistent operations. People are trying to solve this with a stick, not a carrot when a carrot is what is needed. CCP need to stop the nerfing of high sec structures, if they are vulnerable to a wardec give them the same stats in all areas of space, then strip stations from highsec to create a lot more need for your own structure. At that point you will see significant high sec corps operating in small areas from their own structures, which then give you wardec targets in space.

Some were true enough, namely pirat and marmite.
The removal Dramatically affected the trade hub campers, they grew.
they absorbed the smaller entities almost to a man,
had at eachother for six months and now there is one undisputed fecking big one, Vendetta.
their operations were entirely unaffected

Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping true,
however bringing Balancing in its absence (however that might be achieved)
would at least give those of us who have no intrest in hubhumping options.

FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2016-11-22 05:28:04 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:

Some were true enough, namely pirat and marmite.
The removal Dramatically affected the trade hub campers, they grew.
they absorbed the smaller entities almost to a man,
had at eachother for six months and now there is one undisputed fecking big one, Vendetta.
their operations were entirely unaffected

Bringing watchlists back won't stop the camping true,
however bringing Balancing in its absence (however that might be achieved)
would at least give those of us who have no intrest in hubhumping options.



More or less. It's unfortunate that CCP didn't try to preserve a style of gameplay that encouraged very active gameplay, gathering intel, scouting, setting up traps etc. It didn't get the volume of kills, but it was very rewarding to actually hunt someone. To be fair, it's still possible, it's just so much less viable, to the point that we see results in the deaths of small wardec groups and their absorbtion into the larger alliances.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2016-11-23 11:47:58 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Good point. That is not at all what I had in mind, but it is what would happen. The idea needs refinement. How about this: A wardec suspect timer is a special kind of suspect timer. It flashes a different color, and if you shoot the person, you get a limited engagement timer with the person's corp and alliance. If someone provides remote assistance to you, they also get a limited engagement timer too. Would that solve the problem?

So you want to fix a non existent problem by bringing back the old convoluted web of aggression timers.
See my post above, the War mechanics are not the issue, the issue is the lack of viable drivers (& rewards) for making a highsec corp other than to wardec others with.


Non-existant only if you don't consider newbies getting griefed to the point of leaving the game as soon as they start being social a problem.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2016-11-23 12:03:53 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Agondray wrote:
You don't need to have aggressor go suspect. some of the war decs are legit big corp vs big corp of combat pilots, while the majority are for greifing, there are other ways to go about this. the big problem with empire wars is its nothing but station games.



That could be solved easily. If you have committed aggression AND are pointed - you can't have a session change. It would be that simple. It would be similar to adding 'your mwd doesn't work when scrammed' to the warp scrambler function. Just add you can't jump gates or dock when scrammed or disrupted.


As to the OP idea of any aggression makes you a global target - I love long walks on the beach, all forms of ship explosion and chaos in general, but that would just be too much. The first week would be a glorious blood bath and then HS warfare would just go away for the most part.


I don't think it would be too much at all. You can often take a small fleet through low or null, where you're constantly a global target, and often not get engaged because you have more on the fireld than people can counter. The Jita undock may not be the best place start a war, butI don't see that as a problem at all. Allowing players to selectively target a couple players who just joined the game with no way for anyone else to get involved without a huge commitment is too much.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#35 - 2016-11-23 12:26:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
James Zimmer wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Good point. That is not at all what I had in mind, but it is what would happen. The idea needs refinement. How about this: A wardec suspect timer is a special kind of suspect timer. It flashes a different color, and if you shoot the person, you get a limited engagement timer with the person's corp and alliance. If someone provides remote assistance to you, they also get a limited engagement timer too. Would that solve the problem?

So you want to fix a non existent problem by bringing back the old convoluted web of aggression timers.
See my post above, the War mechanics are not the issue, the issue is the lack of viable drivers (& rewards) for making a highsec corp other than to wardec others with.


Non-existant only if you don't consider newbies getting griefed to the point of leaving the game as soon as they start being social a problem.
This is Eve. It is a non-consensual PvP sandbox where you are never safe by design. The fact that you can be attacked by other players is intended and not a problem, as is the fact that corporations are the basic unit of that competition.

There are plenty of competent corporations, both in highsec and elsewhere, that effectively mitigate the risk from wardecs to near zero. Most of them are welcoming of new players and have no problem teaching even the greenest pilot to operate in highsec under a war. Players who play badly, whether because they are new and don't know better or because they are just incompetent, are going to lose in this game just as in any other competitive game. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. You learn from your losses and get better. And besides, being in a corporation, and thus in a war, is completely optional and you can make them stop at any time with a click or two of your mouse.

I'll acknowledge that Eve could use some more space for truly social players who are not trying to compete. If you want to propose a "social corp" that is immune to wardecs has no benefits or privileges of a player corp, then I'll be on board cheering you on. But if you just want to nerf the only mechanism for competition via nuanced ship PvP and structure removal left in highsec into irrelevance because of some tired "think of the children" argument, I will just give you the old -1.

Eve Online is a PvP game at its core. In PvP, there are winners and there are losers. Please stop trying to nerf the game into boredom in some misguided attempt to make New Eden into a happy-fun-land where no one can lose to another player. We've had enough of that in recent years. If some new players can't handle getting exploded in a game literally about exploding spaceships, they are most likely playing the wrong game.
Previous page12