These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#401 - 2013-03-25 20:59:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Vincent Athena wrote:
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
You guys do realize that you are posting in a necro thread here and so it's pretty much ado about nothing?

@ Cannibal Kane:
Am I on your blacklist? It would be an honor to fight you- and I mean that in the most sincere, respectful and un-ironic way.

If we started a new thread we would have been accused of not using the search function. And as no change has happened to the war dec system since the thread was started, CCP must need more of a push, and hence more to do.


The main teasers in this thread were Trebor's 90% claim and CCP allegedly wanting to get rid of non consensual wars.
Both have been debunked as far as I know.

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.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#402 - 2013-03-25 22:18:28 UTC
I do not remember any debunking of the percentage value. The number did appear to be pulled out of the air, but no one has come up with a better estimate.

"Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.
Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?"

The tread has wandered to that comment. If the current war dec mechanic is a failure, then we need to figure out what to replace it with.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#403 - 2013-03-25 23:09:49 UTC
The ability to dodge war makes war decs pointless. Like much of eve is pointless.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#404 - 2013-03-25 23:14:13 UTC
Having read the meeting minutes from beginning to end myself, I think I would have noticed and been appalled by a statement like that. So I can only think perhaps you have taken it a little out of context.

I'm sure the Eve devs wouldn't even contemplate something so disturbingly un-Eve-like. Wars have to be non-mutual. Otherwise they are not wars. It's as simple as that.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

YuuKnow
The Scope
#405 - 2013-03-26 00:18:54 UTC
I think the current war dec mechanic is fine...

... it would just be nice to have some sortof incentive to actually fight and win the war. As it works now, the 'winner' doesn't really win anything. The loser keeps on doing business as always.

I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps station rights, mining rights, or PI rights to a system can be at stake. If there we HiSec POCOS, then this would obviously be one of the most hottest contested items and likely frequent focal point of war-decs.

Its one of the reason I think Hi-Sec POCOS would actually be good for the game as it will promote conflict and competition beyond the usual aimless, pointless station gaming.

yk
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#406 - 2013-04-09 00:51:17 UTC
my thoughts on wardecs is a system with much more granularity, customisation and a higher sense of it being tied into the eve universe. In doing so, wardecs would have much higher costs.

the current war dec system is very simplistic, you declare war, cost is factored in based on active members and duration, thats it.

features id like to see are:
Granularity of space the war declaration is active in (highsec/lowsec - amarr/minmatar/gallente/caldari)
Cost tied to major factions standings, as a multiplier
Levying navy police as limited protection to corps with high faction standings on public grids (gates / stations)
2 tier bribing system:
1st level (least costly) - suspends concord intervention
2nd level (more costly) - suspends faction navy intervention

Any form of tags for standings / sec status should be limited say ( -10.0 to 3.0).


This will mean corps can dis-incentivise themselves from being war dec'd with high faction standings and sec status, and aggressors can lower costs of war decs by limiting fighting to certain areas of space and layers of protection the target group receives.
Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
#407 - 2013-04-09 02:32:15 UTC
I could give the usual feedback given to any change or potential change made in EVE, usually by the leetzors

"Adapt"
Kristopher Rocancourt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#408 - 2013-04-09 11:44:39 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
CCP Wrangler wrote:
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.


I have subscribed to EVE with the belief that the above statement has always been one of the core values of our beloved game. It is the one thing that makes this MMO different from all the other "Hello Kitty Online" games out there.

Today I was shocked to find one of CCP's own employees making the following statement in the recent CSM meeting minutes (page 68):

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].


Is this really CCP's official stance? Is making all high-sec engagements mutual really CCP's primary goal?

In my eyes the very idea of forcing wardecs to be consensual and "honourable" duels is an abomination against the very idea of EVE. It is not simply a change within the game, it is changing the game itself.

Please discuss your opinions about CCP Solomon's radical new ideas about EVE in this thread, but lets keep the trolling to the minimum.

Edit: Here is a really good writeup on the positions of different CSM and CCP members about the issue. Remember the names of these pro-hellokitty CSM members in the upcoming election.



based on the above mentioned quotes, CCP Solomon is an idiot.

http://killalliance.co.uk/tears/tears-holeysheet/

John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Holdings
#409 - 2013-04-09 11:58:16 UTC
Good news. Any and all fighting in High Sec should be 100% consensual. They should prevent all griefing in High Sec while they're at it.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Lennox Dantes
FLESHBAG MARAUDERS
#410 - 2013-04-09 12:07:12 UTC
This is the beginning of the end for Eve Onlline. We are currently riding the slippery slope downwards to its eventual demise. Every game does this same exact thing before people start walking away in big numbers.

Eve was a true sandbox game. The players made the rules and handled their problems in-game. More and more developers are interjecting their will into our gaming experience. It started with the upgrades to mining barges and won't stop at the mutual wardec. I quit for 7 months after the ore holds were added because it was clear that CCP was trying to "control" its player base. This, in itself, is what I have a huge problem with.

What was so wrong with can flipping? No one ever got killed unless the other party agreed to fight. It was as mutual as mutual can be? But, people cry and CCP (although they never used to be) are suddenly taking care of their carebears. The carebears that ruin every single MMO they play. They will never stop crying... you can't make them happy.

Eve was my game. True freedom to do what I wanted, fly any ship and know that there were good and bad matchups for me. Now CCP is doing everything they can to ban piracy... the can flipping rules where you not only turn yellow to everyone, but if they steal your can back its OK! Because, somehow the all-knowing space police know exactly who was in the wrong! How stupid.

No carebears can have their cake and eat it too! But wait! They aren't satisfied... lets hear them cry now about "bumping" and wardecs. AWWWWW. Really? And you turds at CCP are actually listening? I had a ton of respect for CCP as a company. They seemed to maintain the integrity of their game at all costs. But about a year ago this all stopped. Something changed in CCP and they decided to go mainstream. They decided to theme park it out as much as possible. How gay is the dueling system? Really... in eve? Never thought I would see the day.

Then, we can talk about ship balancing... or unbalancing I should say. Eve Online had perfect balance. Now it seems that every money (very much like WoW) CCP are going to randomly tip the scales and make something more powerful and something les powerful... ooh yay! Thank you for telling me what to fly and when to fly it! Not only that but almost all ships are WAY too easy to fit, have waaay to many drones and waaay too effective of bonuses. The cool thing about eve was that ships had SERIOUS downsides to them. There are no real downsides anymore. Similar to WoW, every "class" is getting mutilated into a jack of all trades, answer for everything. Stupid.

CCP you are ruining this game. Please fire whoever has been in charge over the past year. It is an absolute joke.









John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Holdings
#411 - 2013-04-09 13:23:38 UTC
Lennox Dantes wrote:
Stuff



Eve has historically been home to all of the griefers, arseholes, scumbags and fuckwits that have been banned from all of the other MMOs. So now you're upset because CCP don't want to allow you to be griefing tards any more? Cry me a river.

Adapt or leave. I'm sure the influx of new players will more than off-set the loss.


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#412 - 2013-04-09 17:23:31 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Lennox Dantes wrote:
Stuff



Eve has historically been home to all of the griefers, arseholes, scumbags and fuckwits that have been banned from all of the other MMOs. So now you're upset because CCP don't want to allow you to be griefing tards any more? Cry me a river.
..


I would counter its also home to a lot of pussified carebears who are killing the game with never ending cries for more nerfs. It used to be HTFU from CCP, now its "Hello, how can I nerf the game for you today?", this must end...

DECAGEDDON!

Have you wardecced a carebear corp today?
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#413 - 2013-04-09 17:34:36 UTC
I don't think any of these things should be taken out of eve but CCP should look at implementing a 'punch upper arm' button. it's the most effective way of modifying this behaviour and is sorely needed on the forums also.

or maybe just set auto-destruct for any permutation of 'UMAD BRO' typed into local.

forums.  serious business.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#414 - 2013-04-09 19:56:08 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
[...
The main teasers in this thread were Trebor's 90% claim and CCP allegedly wanting to get rid of non consensual wars.
Both have been debunked as far as I know.


Perhaps in words, certainly not historical deeds though, and that's whats at issue.

Those who aren't fanbois see the history of nerfs in recent releases as actions taken by CCP to nerf hisec. Be it exhumer buffs, nerfing can flipping with global suspect flags, increased wardec costs and war defenders having unlimited allies, its clear to me nerfing hisec for more carebear subs is the reality, HTFU no longer being the guiding principle...

There is one simple litmus test to apply to any upcoming or proposed wardec changes IMHO, do said changes make it easier or harder to initiate non-consensual pvp?

Until then my quest to educate carebears on what makes EVE special continues.

Join me! wardec a carebear corp today!


Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
#415 - 2013-04-09 22:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zeus Maximo
Hello, I am the CEO of U-Mad and we are the corporation that has a perma dec against Eve University. We have spent well over 20 billion isk for the past 9 months to keep this dec going and I would like to make my opinion known.

1. War decs are and should always be apart of Eve Online. Who cares if someones wants to fight or not, its WAR. I paid for it!

2. We commonly dec null/low sec alliances to cut off their logistics in High sec. It is common for a lot of them to stay in low/null because they dont want to die without carrier support. CCP wants people in null/low.... you got it.

3. Our War Dec against Ivy League has caused the CSM Kelduum to be extremely against war decs.

Past things that he yelled about in local that magically got turned into ccp blogs for nerfing
-we used ooc logi, he got it nerfed
-we use boosters, he has screamed to get it nerfed
-we have perma decs, he wants wars to be more expensive against bigger corps/alliances
-we got stuck in the dec shield trap, he fought for the trap


You see, it seems a lot of these recent majors changes that have come to light have previously came from kelduums mouth in his mumble or in local. Funny how its all a coincidence....

4. Subscriptions are still rising for CCP so obviously we arent hurting the game. If anything we are giving more substance.

If anyone has any questions or comments about Ivy League or the war dec system feel free to mail me :)

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment

Senji Vuran
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#416 - 2013-04-09 22:10:46 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
@ Adriel:

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.


Increase insurance for the wardec'd corp when blown up by the aggressors?
Or, a way for the corp to buy a blanket insurance for the same?

(Probably a stupid idea)

Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
Divinity.
#417 - 2013-04-09 23:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekksander Geinesa
As long as eve has had war the loosers have always stayed in stationed or QQed to a number of places..


There is no amount of game mechanics that will EVER change this... unless they do something stupid like make it so you can only fight one day a week or something like that... then it wont be war....



The aggressor always pays for the war, and generally if you do not make it worth their isk then they will drop the war and look for targets worth their ISK.

Do I think higher prices should be put on wars? - No.

Do I think that nuet rring of any sort should be acceptable - No. This is a police sanctioned war, you should have to "Register" your pilots with the police..... or whatever....

Do I think there will always be people who QQ cause they got WDed - YES! No amount of game mechanic will change unless both sides get to agree on the fight.




A quick fix to the whole "what about if people dont want to have a war"


2 things:

1.) Make it so at the end of the war, the "Winning side" gets an ISK pay out based on the ships destroyed by the loosing side. This gives aggressor and the aggressed a REASON to fight.

2.) Simply allow a corp to pay a very high cost/insurance/optional payment word here each month to concord to either increase the price it costs to war dec them, or make it impossible to wardec them. Make this 5x the price that it costs to war dec that corp.

3.) Make it so that when the aggressor creates a war dec they HAVE to put a terms of surrender in the dec. In a value of ISK, allowing the defenders to pay this value, and not be allowed to be war decced again for X number of days..


Anything else is just going to cause people to QQ in a different light, or different way.
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#418 - 2013-04-09 23:28:47 UTC
I quite enjoy hiring mercs to kill miners :) I'll probably stop playing if you can't wardeck and make someone cry.. Roll
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#419 - 2013-04-10 02:53:06 UTC
Hmm, maybe we should look into this war dec thing. Sounds promising.

All of this War Dec hate fuels our ships. Lol

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts

Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
#420 - 2013-04-10 02:54:51 UTC
Alekksander Geinesa wrote:

2.) Simply allow a corp to pay a very high cost/insurance/optional payment word here each month to concord to either increase the price it costs to war dec them, or make it impossible to wardec them. Make this 5x the price that it costs to war dec that corp.

3.) Make it so that when the aggressor creates a war dec they HAVE to put a terms of surrender in the dec. In a value of ISK, allowing the defenders to pay this value, and not be allowed to be war decced again for X number of days..



I agree with everything you said except point number 2.

For an example:

We dec ivy league weekly so they would be more than willing to pay lets say 3 billion a week to disallow our dec. This would be the same for major alliances that get decced by lets say freight club. They see the dec, they pay the astronomical number, then they are immune.

CCP has been doing a great job with the ship re-balances lately which are mostly for PVP players. Once last year they had an expansion for mining barges but other than that everything is war based. Why do all these changes for war and then make people immune to it?

As most things go in life the 2% that are unhappy with things are the most vocal.


I really like your #3 in the sense that the deccing corp can potentially make money from it and the person thats decced can get out of the war quickly. With the recent dec changes repeated decs on that entity wont be possible.

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment