These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-01-17 10:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Obviously it's not ideal that many wardecs end up in docking up and sitting there, but that's not a reason to make wardecs mutual. It's a reason to provide incentives to fight.


Yes, though the difference is semantics - mutuality or a reason to fight - it boils down to the same thing in the end - if there's a good reason to fight it's effectively mutual.

As far as I'm concerned, there's always a reason to fight,equally, there is little point in leading the charge of the light brigade over and over to no appreciable end. That is, imo, why many people avoid them.



Edit: @TheGunslinger42

I didn't say I agreed, but I can see the standpoint, if you take a step back and consider the wider metagame/playing experience.

However, how on earth do you propose 'encouraging' people with minimal/nil combat skills to undock and try to bring the pain in a war? It's not even possible never mind practical. Hiring mercs still leaves them sitting in a station/playing other stuff.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#22 - 2013-01-17 10:11:15 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Oh No! The Sky is Falling! A single CCP Dev expresses a single comment that you disagree with!
EVE is DEAD!

Or.....
We could not over-react.
It's a single Devs singular opinion thats posited as a question. It's not even a definitive statement. I recognise for some of you english may not be a primary language, but it has it's nuances to.

Edit.
I also note virtually no-one has paid any attention to the 'Both sides should have the ability to cause losses' part of his statement.
So I guess you all like your risk free ganking where you know exactly how much it will cost you. And know the other guy can't fight back. Who's the carebear in this case.


A question deserves an answer, and there's a huge difference between can't fight back and won't fight back, hows that for a nuance?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#23 - 2013-01-17 10:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Piugattuk wrote:
There is plenty of PVP to be had.


It isn't a question of the availability of PVP, it's a question of the availability of non-consensual PVP. A big part of the EVE culture has been that while this is a sandbox, and you can build your own castle, someone else is allowed to walk up to your castle and take a swing at it. If you don't want them to do it, you have to defend (either on your own, with friends, or with mercs - it doesn't really matter). Otherwise, tough ****.

The biggest concern is that if CCP takes this route, it means that a very large portion of EVE will be virtually immune to any form of risk, unless they agree to participate in a mutual war. The only forms of stomping someone else's castle will be suicide ganking (not remotely efficient and quite cumbersome) or corp ganking (very limited in scope). Do you really want to acquiesce and allow for people to just stack their bricks forever with no way for anyone to effectively interfere? Do you realize the potential impact this has on the EVE economy?

Furthermore, I would like to raise the question regarding the problem of so many decs ending in so few kills. First of all, I highly doubt that many wars end with 0 kills. If you read the notes, Solomon "wagers" 70-80% of the decs end like this. Actual metrics would be nice rather than a random guess. Second of all, I'm not sure there is a problem with that. While decs with no losses may not be as entertaining as wars with many kills, they often still serve a purpose. Sometimes, the goal is to simply disrupt operations for a week. If you can blow stuff up along the way, great. If not, you still impacted someone, and created content for them. They may not like the content, the content may adversely affect them, but it was still created for them.

One other concern that was raised was that of large corps going after small ones because they were weaker. While this certainly happens, it is my experience (as someone who is heavily involved in both the griefer and merc communities) that it is often smaller groups going after very large numbers of targets, just to have enough people to shoot at to keep them satisfied. Not only that, but defenders now have a plethora of advantages over aggressors - even particularly well prepared aggressors. With the introduction of the ally system, defenders can literally have half a dozen PVP entities join their wars for a paltry sum of ISK. Sure, some of them will be dead weight, and some of them might charge a fee, but the reality is that a very large number of groups will take "defense" work for free, just for the free targets. Then you add on the fact that for what are relatively small quantities of ISK, defenders can hire very competent mercs to crush the aggressors, and you have a pretty healthy system.

Frankly, the biggest blow to defenders was the way in which CCP made mutual wars useless. By making mutual wars instantly retractable by the aggressor, they prevent the defenders who are capable from actually punishing the aggressors. Had they instead made it so that declaring the war mutual required the defender to pay a war fee (basically turning it into a reversed war dec) they would have allowed defenders to trap aggressors in a war, so long as they were willing to pay for it (solves dec shield problems as well). Then, to allow for "truly mutual" wars, such as RvB, they could have added in a "confirm mutual" button for the aggressors, which makes the war free for both parties, and end-able via surrender offers only.

Hopefully, CCP will realize that the removal of non-consensual decs not only covers a very large portion of players in a blanket of near immunity, but also greatly reduces the tools and options groups have to strike out against those who stand in their way. For example, a common contract is for null sec entities to hire mercs to disrupt other entities' supply chains in HS (decing their JF corps). No JF alt corp (nor null sec entity with in-corp logistics) will agree to a war dec. Situations like this show that removal of non-consensual decs will not only hurt high-sec PVP, but also adversely affect the ability to engage in warfare in other parts of EVE.
Thar Saal
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-01-17 10:19:34 UTC
Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#25 - 2013-01-17 10:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Thar Saal wrote:
Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.


New players, fair enough, but non combat orientated groups already have the means to protect themselves in the event of war, it's called hiring others to do your fighting for you, though tbh a non combat orientated group should accept that Eve is essentially a combat based MMO and plan accordingly by having combat capable pilots to protect their interests and assets.

If you won't protect your interests and assets in Eve, by planning ahead, or taking advantage of the existing mechanics involving allies and mercs, then you deserve to lose them.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#26 - 2013-01-17 10:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Thar Saal wrote:
Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.


Frankly, if this were a bigger problem, I could understand that. I think one of the major misunderstandings that is going on in this thread (and the minutes) is that very few wars last longer than a week, let alone two. Occasionally, a war will go on for a few weeks, but the longest (non-mutual) war that I know of lasted 10 weeks. After doing nearly three years of griefing and merc work, I can say that I've had three decs last longer than three weeks out of over 200 wars. Those three decs were against alliances of 300, 500, and 800 people (while my alliance has 18 now, but for the first two was a corp of 7). Two of the wars have hundreds of kills and the third was to kill off a rival alliance (the 800 man alliance) in NPC space we were living in part time.

By and large, the only groups who experience extended decs/interruption are large enough they should be able to either handle it themselves, or pool enough resources to hire someone to intercede on their behalf. Sure there will always be the groups that grief the crap out of smaller entities if the system is left open, but is it really worth making large swathes of players immune to protect a few people who could rather easily escape the war by dropping corp and starting new ones? It should be noted that repeatedly going after the same individual(s) over long periods of time can also constitute harassment and be dealt with by CCP.
Thar Saal
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-01-17 10:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Thar Saal
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Thar Saal wrote:
Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.


New players, fair enough, but non combat orientated groups already have the means to protect themselves in the event of war, it's called hiring others to do your fighting for you, though tbh a non combat orientated group should accept that Eve is essentially a combat based MMO and plan accordingly by having combat capable pilots to protect their interests and assets.

If you won't protect your interests and assets in Eve, by planning ahead, or taking advantage of the existing mechanics involving allies and mercs, then you deserve to lose them.



I agree to your point, focusing on new players now, how would we assist them getting a good foundation of experience during a war-dec without

A. Losing the motivation to play the game based off of forced inactivity.

B. Gain interest in the fun gained by high-sec wars and let them parcipate on a artificial equal footing.

C. A resoultion which cannot be exploited by players who aren't new to the game*

The second part is more difficult to decided because time has created the gap by which new players cannot be expected to compete with old players, especailly in a pvp sense.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-01-17 10:34:47 UTC
@ Adriel:

Trebor mentioned the 90% in the CSM minutes. I am not sure where he got those numbers, but I was just taking it as a fact for now.

I am not against non-consensual wars or pvp in eve, since it is one of the defining features of this game.
I was just shocked because of those 90%. This means that 90% of the wardecs keep players from playing the game, which is simply terrible for new player retention.
Of course the idea with making only mutual wars valid is complete crap, I think everybody will agree on this.
But CCP should find a way (maybe better incentives) to get those numbers to at least 50%.
Wars should lead to pew pew.
Stuff getting blown up.
Fun.
If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#29 - 2013-01-17 10:42:27 UTC
Thar Saal wrote:
I agree to your point, focusing on new players now, how would we assist them getting a good foundation of experience during a war-dec without

A. Losing the motivation to play the game based off of forced inactivity.

B. Gain interest in the fun gained by high-sec wars and let them parcipate on a artificial equal footing.

C. A resoultion which cannot be exploited by players who aren't new to the game*

The second part is more difficult to decided because time has created the gap by which new players cannot be expected to compete with old players, especailly in a pvp sense.


I fundamentally disagree that new players cannot compete with old players. I started PVPing when I was less than a month old. Sure, I only had a rifter, but I quickly learned what I could and could not take on in it. I then picked fights where I wouldn't get instantly slaughtered and went from there. I did this without any older players guiding me. No older players backing me up. Just me, and a couple of other newbies killing dudes with T1 frigates. Sure, once we got bigger ships and more resources we could compete with that many more people, but the reality is that you can get into a near maxed out battlecruiser (T2 everything, good support skills and BC 5) in less than six months. Hell, you can get into a maxed out T3 in less than six months. The fallacy that you have to be 5 years old and have everything at 5 to PVP remotely well astounds me.

Sure, a couple of noobs in T1 frigates can't take down entire groups of faction BSes with boosts, implants, and logi. But if those same noobs choose their fights well, they can and will succeed in PVP. They keep it up for a few months, and those cute T1 frig pilots will be mean son-of-a-bitches in BCs, HACs, or T3s. All it takes is a bit of intelligence, and the will to succeed.

As a side note, I've found that most of the newer players that end up getting killed by myself of my alliance (which invariably happens in decs) are the ones most interested in improvement. These are the people who convo me asking what they did wrong, how they were beaten so easily, and what they should do to get better at EVE. In my experience, it is the older players who brought out their bling to "put us in our place" but had no idea what they were doing that rage quit - not the guys still enamored by the thrill of EVE.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-01-17 10:44:33 UTC
I'm calling shenanigans on the "creating content" for people.

if you're driving them to another game/activity what content are you providing? Some nifty stealth kills in Dishonored? Another level up in torchlight 2?

There's a happy medium between no interaction and driving people away. Where people dont bother undocking, it is perilously close to the latter.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#31 - 2013-01-17 10:46:39 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Obviously it's not ideal that many wardecs end up in docking up and sitting there, but that's not a reason to make wardecs mutual. It's a reason to provide incentives to fight.


Yes, though the difference is semantics - mutuality or a reason to fight - it boils down to the same thing in the end - if there's a good reason to fight it's effectively mutual.

As far as I'm concerned, there's always a reason to fight,equally, there is little point in leading the charge of the light brigade over and over to no appreciable end. That is, imo, why many people avoid them.



Edit: @TheGunslinger42

I didn't say I agreed, but I can see the standpoint, if you take a step back and consider the wider metagame/playing experience.

However, how on earth do you propose 'encouraging' people with minimal/nil combat skills to undock and try to bring the pain in a war? It's not even possible never mind practical. Hiring mercs still leaves them sitting in a station/playing other stuff.


Trying to fight in that situation is difficult, but definitely not impossible - especially not now with the ally system. Get some good pvp allies and instead of staying docked and letting them have a fight, they could tag along with them in cheap low skilled combat ships. They'd get a bit of experience with pvp, they'd be putting themselves out there on the field facing the aggressor, the extra ships will definitely contribute, they may even have fun.

There's not really any mechanical reason why they have to stay docked, and they're certainly not at such a great disadvantage that we should discuss making all wars purely consensual. Which is why I think it's more of an attitude problem than anything else. Then again, eve is a sandbox, and if they decide they don't want to take part at all and stay docked up, that's fine. But that's a choice they consciously made, if the consequences of that are "I cant do anything :(" then too bad, they made that choice, so I don't think we need to change war mechanics based on them choosing that
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#32 - 2013-01-17 10:48:14 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
@ Adriel:

Trebor mentioned the 90% in the CSM minutes. I am not sure where he got those numbers, but I was just taking it as a fact for now.

I am not against non-consensual wars or pvp in eve, since it is one of the defining features of this game.
I was just shocked because of those 90%. This means that 90% of the wardecs keep players from playing the game, which is simply terrible for new player retention.
Of course the idea with making only mutual wars valid is complete crap, I think everybody will agree on this.
But CCP should find a way (maybe better incentives) to get those numbers to at least 50%.
Wars should lead to pew pew.
Stuff getting blown up.
Fun.
If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.


If I'm not mistaken, he said 78%. I took this as another made up statistic, based upon how fluid CCP Solomon's wager was.

Second, just because no kills occurred does not mean these wars drove those players away from the game. While I don't have an exact number, I can say that a very large number of a corp/alliances membership will log on the hours or days after a war finishes. Since we add every single target to our watch list (so we can hunt them down and kill them), I actually see how the populations often flourish after decs. Generally, when people quit the game because of our decs, they tell us, via convo, mail, or even youtube videos. However, it is not uncommon for us to stumble upon those who quit a few months down the road.

Before CCP even considers touching the decs, they need to find and publish metrics that actually show the number of people who quit the game over decs. I certainly won't deny that people definitely quit over decs, or that new players may take it especially hard in certain situations. But I do contest that a week of a grief dec here and there has as big of an impact on the membership as the CSM and several posters are implying.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-01-17 10:51:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Trying to fight in that situation is difficult, but definitely not impossible - especially not now with the ally system. Get some good pvp allies and instead of staying docked and letting them have a fight, they could tag along with them in cheap low skilled combat ships. They'd get a bit of experience with pvp, they'd be putting themselves out there on the field facing the aggressor, the extra ships will definitely contribute, they may even have fun.

There's not really any mechanical reason why they have to stay docked, and they're certainly not at such a great disadvantage that we should discuss making all wars purely consensual. Which is why I think it's more of an attitude problem than anything else. Then again, eve is a sandbox, and if they decide they don't want to take part at all and stay docked up, that's fine. But that's a choice they consciously made, if the consequences of that are "I cant do anything :(" then too bad, they made that choice, so I don't think we need to change war mechanics based on them choosing that



I agree, but the trouble is from CCPs business/customer experience standpoint - that may not be a sacrifice they are willing or able to make.

I don't know, of course, but many here seem to forget/overlook that they're running a business and that will drive their decisions even if some don't like it much.


Edit: To add for clarity, I don't have issue with the current mechanic, but am simply trying to understand the comment and see it from their point of view.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#34 - 2013-01-17 10:53:44 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm calling shenanigans on the "creating content" for people.

if you're driving them to another game/activity what content are you providing? Some nifty stealth kills in Dishonored? Another level up in torchlight 2?

There's a happy medium between no interaction and driving people away. Where people dont bother undocking, it is perilously close to the latter.


The decs are creating the opportunity for the defender to "make a stand," to have a defining point in their corp history, to have the option to try out PVP for the first time, etc. By dec'ing someone, I am creating a situation for them in which they must act. They have many choices before them - they can fight, they can run, they can hide, they can play another game, they can hire mercs, they can drop corp, they can be sneaky/smart with their normal activities, they can try a new part of the game, etc. They aren't forced into any of those situations. They choose which one they take. That is as close to content creation as it gets in HS - creating the opportunity for decisions and interaction an individual or group of individuals would not otherwise have.

If people choose to stay docked or to not log in, that decision is on them - not the aggressors.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#35 - 2013-01-17 10:54:57 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I agree, but the trouble is from CCPs business/customer experience standpoint - that may not be a sacrifice they are willing or able to make.

I don't know, of course, but many here seem to forget/overlook that they're running a business and that will drive their desciions even if some don't like it much.


This is exactly why I think they need to actually collect real metrics rather than changing wide reaching game features and design philosophies based on wagers and gut feelings.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#36 - 2013-01-17 10:56:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Thar Saal wrote:


I agree to your point, focusing on new players now, how would we assist them getting a good foundation of experience during a war-dec without

A. Losing the motivation to play the game based off of forced inactivity.

B. Gain interest in the fun gained by high-sec wars and let them parcipate on a artificial equal footing.

C. A resoultion which cannot be exploited by players who aren't new to the game*

The second part is more difficult to decided because time has created the gap by which new players cannot be expected to compete with old players, especailly in a pvp sense.


I can see where you're coming from and I partially agree with most of your points. Concentrating on noobs,

Point A: Forced inactivity due to a wardec is not the fault of the people that instigated the dec, it is ultimately the fault of the corporation that tells their pilots to dock up for the duration.

Point B: Participation on an artificial equal footing would be wrong in so many ways, an alternative would be to take a leaf out of the "Book of Goon", even as noobs they found that there was strength in numbers and carved themselves a fairly sizeable chunk of the pie using that strength. A horde of noobs in basic frigates and destroyers are more than capable of taking on a smaller number of opponents in much larger ships, especially with the support of more experienced pilots as FCs and operation planners. Imagine the amusement of looking at a killboard to find that a bunch of opponent noobs in Arty Thrashers have essentially negated an older pilots experience and SP by taking down his BC/ceptor/t3/BS by using what they have to the best of their abilities. It's up to players to generate their own equal footing via creativity and manipulation of existing mechanics, it's not CCPs job to do it by changing stuff.

Point C: Too vague to actually comment on P

As for your second part, a new player given a couple of months is more than capable of competing in PvP with an older pilot flying a similar ship, time doesn't equal skill, it equals experience and a greater choice of ships. A new character that specialises in frigates soon catches up to a 3 year old character that hasn't in terms of that ship class.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-01-17 11:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Adriel Malakai wrote:


If I'm not mistaken, he said 78%. I took this as another made up statistic, based upon how fluid CCP Solomon's wager was.

Second, just because no kills occurred does not mean these wars drove those players away from the game. While I don't have an exact number, I can say that a very large number of a corp/alliances membership will log on the hours or days after a war finishes. Since we add every single target to our watch list (so we can hunt them down and kill them), I actually see how the populations often flourish after decs. Generally, when people quit the game because of our decs, they tell us, via convo, mail, or even youtube videos. However, it is not uncommon for us to stumble upon those who quit a few months down the road.

Before CCP even considers touching the decs, they need to find and publish metrics that actually show the number of people who quit the game over decs. I certainly won't deny that people definitely quit over decs, or that new players may take it especially hard in certain situations. But I do contest that a week of a grief dec here and there has as big of an impact on the membership as the CSM and several posters are implying.


I am not blaming you or your corp. I am blaming the game mechanics.
As long as it is more beneficial for a corp to stay docked and not fight at all, people will do exactly that- which will impact new player retention heavily.
CCP needs to change war mechanics in a way that makes it desirable even for the most carebearish miner corp to fight instead of turtling in their stations.
Should there be no way to fix war mechanics, the other route would be to limit the number of utterly defenseless newbie corps and allow new corps only if they are part of a larger alliance.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-01-17 11:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
I'm still for CCP Tuxfords (trolling) idea.

It makes so much sense !

When you create a corp, you're at war with everybody in the whole universe and you have to declare peace !

It's perfect ! Those who don't want to be targets, don't need to be targets. Those who want to fight ... can fight !
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-01-17 11:11:26 UTC
Zimmy ... this fits in context ...

I've asked HippoWhisperer to talk to his superiors
about putting my corp into a mutual wardec with both sides of RvB.

Not sure if they approve, but a few supporters could help my cause. ^_^
Wacktopia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-01-17 11:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
Singular Snowflake wrote:
CCP Solomon wrote:
Should it [wardecs] be limited to each party's ability to engage and fight, though? I mean that's what we're trying to zero in on: that consensual, high-sec engagement where its mutual, and both sides have the ability to participate and cause losses and cause damage, that's the kind of thing we want to be moving towards and encouraging.

CCP Solomon wrote:
I'm just stimulating conversation here. If we're going to balance the system, you need to understand what the primary goal is that you're trying to satisfy. And is that you want mutual high-sec engagements, or do I want a situation where one side is the complete aggressor, where the strong preys on the weak, and [the] weak [huddle in stations].


Honestly, if CCP really did this they are killing a part of what makes EVE unique.

I'm not saying this because I like the idea that new corps get decced and spend endless time sitting in station. I'm saying it because war, contest, pvp, ... its all part of the EVE universe.

If CCP are hell-bent on rolling out the candy cane and popcorn the answer is not to remove war decs but to make things more viable for the defender corp. I'd even vote for war aggressors to be flagged a 'suspect' after engaging over removing the war dec system completely.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com