These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Broken War Mechanics
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aitena
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#21 - 2011-12-29 18:20:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aitena
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
The wardec "rules" shouldn't be understood as game policies. They are simply game mechanics which can be followed, worked around, or avoided.

Compare this to, say, cynosural fields. The "rule" says you need two people in order to move a capital ship. However you can easily use an alternate character to do it without help. And nobody thinks that's broken.


There's a world of difference between your analogy and the situation I've described. For starters, there are drawbacks to using cyno alts - namely, the cost of PLEX. The situation I've described has no drawbacks (aside from as one person said, a possibly insecure system), and instead subverts the current system that is in place.

You also compare game policies to game mechanics. This actually helps my point - Game policies (which I interpret as the EULA) do not take game balance into account. They provide an arena in which to build game mechanics. Policies like "no account sharing, no RMT" and others provide that equal playing field in which a game can be built. Game mechanics, such as wardeccing, corp jumping, etcetera, should absolutely be balanced. And by balanced, I mean provide a sandbox-like style of play where ones' own actions have implications both on others and on oneself. The current system as is removes most of the negative implications, and forces large amounts other individuals to change their style of play radically in order to avoid an extremely small amount of griefers that (most of the time) cannot be retaliated against.

This is different than "conventional" wars without corpjumping because in those wars, the aggressed can fight back. In this case, it is unreasonably difficult to fight back against such a small group of individuals which can simply create a new corporation and wardec the alliance/corporation again. Using the current system against them like Cameron stated IS an option but is a horribly twisted and non-simple one that CCP should be ashamed to include in their game. In our particular case, I doubt that it would make a difference since the aggressor pays for many accounts through PLEX, and has relatively unlimited amounts of currency in-game to play with.

Wars are fun! The problem is when one side is effectively invulnerable and has every tactical advantage because of game mechanics, not because of superior force or greater skill.
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#22 - 2011-12-29 22:00:03 UTC
Sadly, Cameron's suggestion is the best option you have this point. You may not like it but there isn't much else to do at this point.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-12-29 22:54:31 UTC
Aitena, there are two separate topics here.

First is using alt corps to declare more than three simultaneous wars. This is what my "cyno field" analogy was refering to. I don't see anything wrong with this - in fact I think the three wars limit shouldn't be there at all. If a corp thinks they can handle fighting half of EVE at once, let them.


The second issue is switching corps to avoid a wardec. I agree with you on this. Switching to an NPC corp which cannot be wardecced in return makes this quite literally a PvP flag you can toggle on or off at will in highsec. The only cost is not being able to grant your character any corporate roles - which in highsec is unnecessary anyway.

In my opinion, this is just one out of a big pile of broken game features called "highsec". I haven't been active in highsec for over two years, but I think that the entire aggression system could use an in-depth reworking. Considering how the mechanics work, I don't think highsec was ever intended as a place for "serious" PvP - the kind of serious where you expect your actions to have meaningful consequences.
Aitena
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#24 - 2011-12-29 23:00:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aitena
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Aitena, there are two separate topics here.

First is using alt corps to declare more than three simultaneous wars. This is what my "cyno field" analogy was refering to. I don't see anything wrong with this - in fact I think the three wars limit shouldn't be there at all. If a corp thinks they can handle fighting half of EVE at once, let them.


The second issue is switching corps to avoid a wardec. I agree with you on this. Switching to an NPC corp which cannot be wardecced in return makes this quite literally a PvP flag you can toggle on or off at will in highsec. The only cost is not being able to grant your character any corporate roles - which in highsec is unnecessary anyway.

In my opinion, this is just one out of a big pile of broken game features called "highsec". I haven't been active in highsec for over two years, but I think that the entire aggression system could use an in-depth reworking. Considering how the mechanics work, I don't think highsec was ever intended as a place for "serious" PvP - the kind of serious where you expect your actions to have meaningful consequences.


I see where you're coming from now, but I respectfully disagree on the first point. If the tactics being used were standard, griefing corps/alliances would be able to wardec basically every non-pvp corp in existence without repercussions, and in order to avoid pvp people disinclined to engage would be forced to stay in NPC corps, which is definitely an "anti-fun" mechanic which would discourage many players from participating in EVE.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-12-29 23:34:43 UTC
From the point of view of a "non-pvp corp" (which to me sounds like a "non-pvp clan" playing Quake, but whatever), what is the difference between a "griefing" corp wardeccing them exclusively, and the "griefing" corp wardeccing them and half of EVE at once? If anything, the latter gives the "griefing" corp more targets, making it that less likely that someone from that particular "non-pvp" corp is attacked.
Aitena
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#26 - 2011-12-30 00:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aitena
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
From the point of view of a "non-pvp corp" (which to me sounds like a "non-pvp clan" playing Quake, but whatever), what is the difference between a "griefing" corp wardeccing them exclusively, and the "griefing" corp wardeccing them and half of EVE at once? If anything, the latter gives the "griefing" corp more targets, making it that less likely that someone from that particular "non-pvp" corp is attacked.


Quake is not a sandbox. EVE is. The current mechanics, like I've said before, remove the ability to effectively counter aggression in highsec. When the hypothetical "bully in the playground of EVE" throws a rock, it's only natural that the kid getting picked on should be able to throw rocks back, even if they are bad at throwing rocks and lose in the process. (Yes, this is a terrible metaphor)

Your argument about "more targets" is completely beside the point, as a wardec makes it effectively impossible for highsec activities to continue as they do normally. That's fine, considering there are (still relatively small) costs to declare a war, a limited amount of wars that can be declared (with alliances, higher and scaling costs when the amount of wars is unlimited), and retaliation is possible. You also exaggerate - "half of EVE" would certainly provide more targets and spread out the resources of the attacker, but that is not the case. It's a large but still very finite group of targets that are still on the same level of alertness when traveling through highsec. And, as I have stated before, the aggressing party does not have to be alert at all - they can simply jump corps to avoid being targeted.

Once upon a time, as a 2 month old noob, I was in an noobie industrial-focused corp that got constantly wardecced. It was fantastic experience, as I was able to get some practical pvp experience. The enemies, while they were older, richer, more experienced, and generally better rounded as pvp pilots, were touchable, and we did the same tactics that they did - camping their stations, trying to catch them on gates, etcetera. Highsec wardeccing relies on a limited number of viable targets that can be fought on conventional grounds.

This mechanic takes "non-consensual pvp" (which is fine) to the realm of "non-consensual, non-winnable pvp" (which is not fine). Sandboxes have boundaries. You shouldn't be able to throw a rock, step out of the sandbox to avoid getting hit back, and then step back in to throw another rock (except by logging off, but that is an entirely different situation which is balanced in its own right).
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-12-30 09:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Aitena wrote:
Quake is not a sandbox. EVE is. The current mechanics, like I've said before, remove the ability to effectively counter aggression in highsec. When the hypothetical "bully in the playground of EVE" throws a rock, it's only natural that the kid getting picked on should be able to throw rocks back, even if they are bad at throwing rocks and lose in the process. (Yes, this is a terrible metaphor)

Yes, I completely agree. This is a part of the "higsec is desperately broken" deal. In any other security region, if someone throws a rock, you are free to get all of your friends and shoot him in the head.

However...

Quote:
Your argument about "more targets" is completely beside the point, as a wardec makes it effectively impossible for highsec activities to continue as they do normally.

Except for when it doesn't. The same mechanics used by the attacker to avoid retaliation can be used by the defender to avoid any aggression at all. You get 24 hours to switch corps or simply kick all of your members to an NPC corp before a single shot can be fired.

Quote:
Once upon a time, as a 2 month old noob, I was in an noobie industrial-focused corp that got constantly wardecced. It was fantastic experience, as I was able to get some practical pvp experience. The enemies, while they were older, richer, more experienced, and generally better rounded as pvp pilots, were touchable, and we did the same tactics that they did - camping their stations, trying to catch them on gates, etcetera.

When I was a couple months old, our corp got wardecced. We were mostly flying cruisers and BCs, owning a BS put you in the "elites". The enemies were camping our stations with pirate cruisers and TIIIs. They could easily take on several of us at once. We weren't scared, we wanted to respond. And the moment we entered a system with even a few man strong fleet, they simply ran or docked up. We went "f*ck this broken sh*t" and moved out to 0.0.
shal ri
Short Bus Window Licker
#28 - 2012-01-18 20:37:43 UTC
since u started out as a carebear u dont quite understand the point of view of a pvper. we want targets. we want lots of targets in lots of places. moving across the world to find those targets gets to be a pain in the ass after a while. thats y we dec alliances lots of targets in lots on places. the more there are the better saves us time on the hunting factor.
wat these guys are doin however is not pvp. its just being pussy. they for the most part running from a proper engagement by hopping from 1 corp to another. not even giving u carebears a chance to fight back.

there is no real solution for this situation. u cant lock ppl in to a corp just because of a war. thats just takes away the carebears exit if they puss out. that simply cant happen. ccp will even rage as they are cearbears themselvs.
the only some wat reasonable solution is puttin a limit on how many times some 1 can jump corp in a given period of time. thats still iffy however. the only reason y i myself would do some like this is if those i war dec'ed refuse to fight and i refuse to drop the dec or i want to maximize the amount of targets i can have at a given time.

this is also not a war machanic. its a player machanic used for war. a war machanic is me wanting to go to war with u and waitin 48 hours for the ability to do so.
Thryson
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#29 - 2012-01-19 22:12:58 UTC
I read through most of the replies here and I can say that even as a high sec griefing corp I think this tactic is a little low, however if you are going to raise support to get this exploit fixed then it needs to come from both pvpers and bears alike I posted recently in the csm fourm about bears using the Dec shield alliance and similar tactics to make their POS impossible to destroy, so yeah i think the whole way war decs work needs to be looked at.

As for a solution you can try to adopt grief hit and run tactis like log offski even tho you can get in trouble I don't think they will report you.

You also said u live in a wormhole why not set up in the hole and put a bait ship out running missions or somthing?

If they r fighting dirty then return the favor have some people leave the alliance and the put apps in the join to try and get the drop on them.

Contact me in game if u want to go over other ideas.
Previous page12