These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of Wardecs

First post First post
Author
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#341 - 2013-01-28 07:47:40 UTC
Fey Ivory wrote:
so when all is said and done what you think your shiny battleship would cost if you dident have all the carebears mining and building ?


People seem to think we care about cost when all our stuff is free.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Yim Sei
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#342 - 2013-01-28 09:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Yim Sei
Chantaz Midumulf wrote:
Just read like 50% of the topic and personally i gotta say that EvE become "****** friendly".


Someone in the beggining said something about sharks, that non NPC corps are full of them.

Personally i think that are the idiots playing PvP in Highsec and Wardeccing high sec care bear corps, should just get thrown away to hell and banned.


Why?


I returned to EvE after 1 year. I joined a corp that seemed safe to me, but unfortunately i've met "A big shark" wich trapped me, asked to pay a fee for live and then killed.


I tried to recruit about 10 friends to the game. Only 1 out of 10 started playing.

Why? Cause like in every single game, people like playing with people. So when you're a newbie, you're asking for help, advices, perhaps join a corp that can help you out, not some NPC crap.

Now there's the problem. Either you get killed, harrased or scammed in a corp OR you make your own and you get WARDECCED to hell.


Well, 55k players can handle that. But do you think that EvE will ever be more popular? Not only it's a hard game to understand for new players, but also more people won't play the game, after they die hard and lose everything because of lack of knowledge. And i think, everyone should have their time to understand the game, not by the harsh way.


So to all PvP high sec players, GROW SOME BALLS and go fight an even opponent.



This is just hilarious.

Its like free tears for everyone :)

...but on a more serious not - you obviously do not understand the ethos of the game.

You ARE playing in an active social system, whith many possible allies or enemies. You need to do at lease a little work to find them, kill them or stop them killing you.

There are MANY corps out there who would take you in, but if all you are going to do is whine - then dont expect to get much social interaction.

Eve is what it is - learn that and play by those rules.

Take every loss as a learning experience.

Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts.

Derdrom Utida
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#343 - 2013-01-28 09:50:32 UTC
Wardecs should never, EVER be consensual. However, CCP should make mercenary corps a more popular thing, be it through UI functionality, an "NPC" merc corporation where missions are given out against live corps, something needs to put more emphasis of "buying protection" rather than getting rid of wardecs as they stand.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#344 - 2013-01-28 09:55:06 UTC
Christopher Caldaris wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Christopher Caldaris wrote:
No wars in High Security space, it's called High Security for a reason.

If you wardec someone in High Sec you should be prepared to face the full wrath of CONCORD.

Keep wars in Low and Null where they belong.



Why?


Since it's not logical to have wars going on in the heart of your empire's space. The hubs of industry and commerce, the corruption of CONCORD to seemingly "look the other way" is absurd and frankly doesn't fit into the narrative of the game.

It feels tacked on and there only to annoy people into leaving their corps or wasting subscription time sitting in the station.

I was forced to leave my last 2 corps because of wardecs restricting me from enjoying the gameplay, which is the entire point of playing the game.

It's hard to explore the galaxy when you can't leave a station without being destroyed in 5 seconds...I don't have that type of ISK to repurchase and refit my ship every time I try to play.


Hypothetically you could ask for advice on how to deal with those sutuations. For instance, you can undock relatively safely using an insta-undock bookmark. Prepare for wardecs by creating a series of bookmarks 1000-2000km directly in front of the station undock point you base from (undock in a fast frigate, don't steer or move AT ALL, hit MWD, and create 3-4 off grid bookmarks at least 200km apart.). Warp to your insta before your undock invulnerability timer runs out and you're free and clear.

Likewise, make a bookmark well inside the docking radius for any station you use regularly. Warp to this instead of to the station, and you'll always be able to dock instantly as soon as you come out of warp.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#345 - 2013-01-28 10:32:00 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:

..... to be a safe lala land where people can farm isk all day because money.


Last I heard that statement seemed to apply to your entire sov null coalitionP

Problem with war dec mechanics is you are going to annoy someone whatever the changes. When Inferno first launched, there were complaints because the aggressors were trapped in mutual wars in which everyone was joining the defender as an ally, when allies were unlimited and essentially free. Then you also had the merc groups QQ'ing that their way of lfe was threatened by all this free help that was readily available to the defenders. The result being a couple of patches later , emergent gameplay was nerfed and any consequence to the aggressor was essentially removed.

There isn't a simple answer here on how to fix it, but I do applaud CCP and Trebor for playing devils advocate, during the CSM Summit, for trying to stimulate discussion. At the moment, I think that the consequences pendulum has swung too far towards the defender. Whatever changes may occur in the future, I believe that non consensual hi sec combat PvP is an important feature that must be maintained.
Radamant Nemess
Aurora Dynamics
#346 - 2013-01-28 13:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Radamant Nemess
Hmmm something like attributes remapping.. You choose that your char cannot be attacked, but also you cannot attack anyone if you choose so for a period of one year... Pay like 1 billion isk fee for that or something like that.. Still stoned, but this seems like an uber idea..

i can fail at any speed you like

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#347 - 2013-01-28 13:22:53 UTC
Radamant Nemess wrote:
Hmmm something like attributes remapping.. You choose that your char cannot be attacked, but also you cannot attack anyone if you choose so for a period of one year... Pay like 1 billion isk fee for that or something like that.. Still stoned, but this seems like an uber idea..

Only if it disables all pvp activities like mining and using the market too.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#348 - 2013-01-28 15:28:37 UTC
Radamant Nemess wrote:
Hmmm something like attributes remapping.. You choose that your char cannot be attacked, but also you cannot attack anyone if you choose so for a period of one year... Pay like 1 billion isk fee for that or something like that.. Still stoned, but this seems like an uber idea..


It's an incredibly terrible idea.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Austneal
Nero Fazione
#349 - 2013-01-28 15:33:29 UTC
My opinion is this:

The advantage should go to the guy with the bigger gun / more experience. You shouldn't be at an advantage because you're the defender, or because you're new...

I believe that if Big Guy decs Little Guy, then Little Guy should expect to get the crap beat out of him. Not be given special treatment so the dec becomes "fair" and "balanced"

Part of the fun of highsec PvP for me was going can flipping in a T1 frig, and waiting for the guy to come back in a BC or something and have at it! Granted, I did kill a few terrible fit BCs with T1 frigs, but I've also lost faction frigs to setups I never expected... and that was ok. It was fun.

Most of the fun came from the ability to fight an honest fight... instead of this "everything must be fair" attitude thats been taken lately.

Kabott
Wormlife Freeport Operations
Wormlife
#350 - 2013-01-28 18:28:35 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
I have no problem with the concept of war, in theory it is a good thing which makes the game more interesting and helps to drive the economy. I think in practice it can be difficult to have a fight at all.

My opinion would be that the ratio of members in each corp should be considered when calculating the cost of declaring war, not to make it impossible for a one guy to declare war on a hundred but to make it as expensive as it is (should be) daft.
Currently an industrial corp wanting to displace another industrial corp needn't disrupt its own operation by declaring war, it pays a tiny merc corp that is outnumbered more than ten to one that will likely never undock/uncloak for the duration of the war to disrupt the victim (rather than fight them). A system that meant the two industrial corps had a direct war would seem a little more fun, purposeful and most importantly provide an opportunity for people to actually shoot at each other.
Perhaps the aggressor should be penalised in some way if they fail to take part in their own war.

People actually shooting at each other would also seem a way of opening roads into low and null from high, I might like shooting at people but Ive yet to need to inspite of having been at war, so far I havent needed to fit a gun to a ship to get through a war and that seems wrong (not to say that I diddnt buy ships to loose in a good cause).

I dont know what a solution is but wardecs dont currently imply that a war will take place, it is a system of irritation at best and it would be good to fight when you are at war - making lemonade when you have lemons.


I would much rather see the system left open so the players decide how it's used. If you, as an industrial corp, make the mistake of hiring a ****** merc who doesn't kill the people you hired them to kill, that's on you. If you got scammed by them, that's on you. The mechanics shouldn't be changed so that the player interaction has to go down like a script - they should be left as far open as possible to allow for players to write their own narratives and make their own choices.



Honestly, I am too recent in this game to know, but reading this thread (not finished yet), s couple things occur to me.

What if I were a rich kid, and could buy thousands of dollars of PLEX just to fund attacks on you and your mates? Some are very rich, and they could even hire skillled players to play with real time money, just to target you and your friends.

It really comes across to me that the underlying fear of many is that some how, some way, their being able to ruin the game for others might be in jeopardy. Or that they might not be able to continue to engage in one-sided tactics that are great for them, but very unfair to others, and they are literally scared of the playing field ever being evened.

It seems the present system (and yes, I realize I am still too recent here to know in fact) is rigged so as to give truly huge advantages to long time veterans, and at the same time so as to saddle new players with handicaps. In time such a game will like a stream damned up, stagnate and die. The present ways seem very much intended to very much discourage and drive off new blood/players.

Just some thoughts from a new player here, but an older gamer. And again, I am too new to really know, but these are honest impressions from a really new player wondering about the game and his future in it.
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#351 - 2013-01-28 20:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dyvim Slorm
Kabott wrote:

It seems the present system (and yes, I realize I am still too recent here to know in fact) is rigged so as to give truly huge advantages to long time veterans, and at the same time so as to saddle new players with handicaps. In time such a game will like a stream damned up, stagnate and die. The present ways seem very much intended to very much discourage and drive off new blood/players.



Having experience is a great asset but not the be all and end all. Wardecs favour the strong, clever or adaptable players. If you're new get some cheap frigs and losing a clone or two at the beginning stages is cheap. Otherwise get some help.

I think some players look at war the wrong way as in a sense it has a RP aspect to it. If I get camped in a station without an insta undock that's part of the experience, it's essentially *why* a lot of us play. Personally I want a game that generates some emotion (even frustration or anger at times) otherwise I might as well get a copy of Space Invaders and just blast pixels.

In an odd sort of way it's the bits that really **** you off that makes Eve stand out and worthwhile playing.
Annihilious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#352 - 2013-01-28 20:43:23 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen.
Crap, I could do a better job just by never undocking. He's a loser extrodinaire...
Canthan Rogue
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#353 - 2013-01-28 21:15:18 UTC
As a new player who lost a drake in a gate camp to war'decers a few days after buying it, I've since learned to scout ahead and use coms and dotlan to prevent a repeat occurrence. I think there is a place for high sec non-consensual warfare but the problem with the current system is that the cost to the aggressor is too low. War decs should cost more than ISK. To a high level griefer corp, ISK is no object and they can perma-war dec whoever they like. I think we need a system where repeated war decs become increasingly expensive, or have some kind of hard limit to declaring war decs, for example, taking a hit to standings as a result of calling in favors with CONCORD and creating disorder within empire space. Another option would be to have a small chance every time a war is declared for the deal to be "leaked" to the public, whereby the aggressor corp suffers extreme standing penalties. My issue with war decs is that CONCORD protection should not just be dependent on ISK.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#354 - 2013-01-28 21:30:33 UTC
flate rate for war dec. something meaty like 1Bn. that should discourage bullying of small corps and still represent a fairly high level of entry to engage a big corp.

forums.  serious business.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#355 - 2013-01-28 21:35:25 UTC
Christopher Caldaris wrote:
.........
Since it's not logical to have wars going on in the heart of your empire's space. The hubs of industry and commerce, the corruption of CONCORD to seemingly "look the other way" is absurd and frankly doesn't fit into the narrative of the game.

It feels tacked on and there only to annoy people into leaving their corps or wasting subscription time sitting in the station.

Actually it fits right into the history. When the pod pilot era started where was no concord, and all were free to shoot all others. The 4 empires complained that this was interfering with their operations and set up concord. The governing bodies of various solar systems and the pod pilot corps said "WAIT A MINUTE, we don't want too heavy a hand here.." So it was decided to let each solar system governor decide just how bog a concord response there would be in that system (which sets the security class) and, for a fee, a pod pilot corp could register a war against another with concord.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#356 - 2013-01-28 21:44:15 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
flate rate for war dec. something meaty like 1Bn. that should discourage bullying of small corps and still represent a fairly high level of entry to engage a big corp.



Why should there be a high level of entry to engage a larger corp?

The wardec is a tool, a means to end. Yes, it is abused sometimes but often it's a useful way for a smaller corp to shift a larger corp from a system by disrupting operations. Having been on both sides of this I can attest to its effectiveness.

IMV 1Bil is far too high but I agree it should be a significant sum, perhaps around 100 - 200 mil, the size of either corp being irrelevant.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
State War Academy
Caldari State
#357 - 2013-01-28 21:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
Simple solution....Move to null...oh wait ....you dont want to go there where you might have to fight other players ready and capable of pvp. You would rather gank miners and indy ships that dont fight back in Hi-sec and call it pvp.

Love these people that club baby seals on the beach and call it sport.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#358 - 2013-01-28 21:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Skeln Thargensen
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
flate rate for war dec. something meaty like 1Bn. that should discourage bullying of small corps and still represent a fairly high level of entry to engage a big corp.



Why should there be a high level of entry to engage a larger corp?

The wardec is a tool, a means to end. Yes, it is abused sometimes but often it's a useful way for a smaller corp to shift a larger corp from a system by disrupting operations. Having been on both sides of this I can attest to its effectiveness.

IMV 1Bil is far too high but I agree it should be a significant sum, perhaps around 100 - 200 mil, the size of either corp being irrelevant.


just 'cos they're a more visible target. you know like eve uni always has war decs etc.

and from what I've read a good dec shield can run the dec price into billions so that's a consideration.

forums.  serious business.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#359 - 2013-01-28 22:08:21 UTC

In my opinion, all players should be open to wardeccing....

At the same time, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more risk imposed on high-sec aggressors...

And there is middle ground between inexpensively wardec against all corps and wardec immune corps... I don't know why people aren't willing to acknowledge this..

For example: A new corp type... the pacifist corp.... (insert some drawbacks for this type of corp)... wardecking them is completely acceptable, but anytime you attack a member of a pacifist corp (even if they are a legal target and not protected by concord), you gain a suspect flag and become a legal target for everyone. If they attack first, they gain a suspect flag too.

I'm not saying this is a good idea... I'm just saying that most wars are extremely unbalanced and result in people not fighting, and in the worse cases, not even playing. This is a BAD thing.... and wardec modifications that keep people playing, and more importantly, encourage more people to risk their ships... is EXACTLY what we want CCP and the CSM to discuss...
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#360 - 2013-01-28 22:14:56 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:


just 'cos they're a more visible target. you know like eve uni always has war decs etc.



But that's absurd, it's rather like saying that if the members of one corp post more messages in the forums than another corp that there should be a difference in the cost of processing ore for either corp.

The concept of size affecting the price of a wardec is meaningless IMV