These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#41 - 2013-01-17 11:25:39 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Oh No! The Sky is Falling! A single CCP Dev expresses a single comment that you disagree with!
EVE is DEAD!


Actually, it was two devs and three CSM members, two of the latter clearly already prostituting themselves for votes, given that Issler has (once again) proved to be completely useless at representing the carebears. That's 500% worse than you're making it out to be; I recommend reading the minutes before you comment on them.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-01-17 11:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Hey...

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

So my only way of making ISK in EVE is being brought under the spot light again. great, will see how this unfolds.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-01-17 11:35:10 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Hey...

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

So my only way of making ISK in EVE is being brought under the spot light again. great, will see how this unfolds.

I'd suggest rallying your supporters/fans.
I'm sure you have quite a few.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#44 - 2013-01-17 11:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
I want to suggest that we take the pvp out of nul sec. There are to many big alliances in nul sec and carebears cant fly safe there. I tried to mine their with all the nice ore, but its just to evil. Maybe we should set the max size of a nulsec alliance to 50. Then its wayyy safer and all new carebears can also goto nulsec and mine better ore. A lot are probably thinking, wtf is he gone nuts.....well, that's exactly the way a lot of people think this highsec suggestion is.

And if Joe Pod is playing an FPS game and gets shot 89734793 times the moment he starts playing that game for the first time, does he quit the game and move to another game....no he tries to get better and better. Get better guns etc.

Removing pvp from highsec is like removing guns from an fps game......nuts!

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#45 - 2013-01-17 11:40:02 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
And if Joe Pod is playing an FPS game and gets shot 89734793 times the moment he starts playing that game for the first time, does he quit the game and move to another game....no he tries to get better and better. Get better guns etc.


Actually, I could quite easily see some of the risk-averse people in this game demanding that Valve introduce consentual PvP areas to counterstrike maps. I've certainly seen my fair share of FPS whiners in the time I've been playing them, and they'd be quite at home in a perfectly safe highsec, AFK ice mining.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#46 - 2013-01-17 11:41:44 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
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. ^_^


But---but--but....I like you, Solstice!

Please don't make me shoot you....UghUgh

But seriously, Hippo has much more rep in RvB than me, I am basically just another mindless grunt. If Hippo agreed to take care of it, I am positive that you will see very satisfactory results in the nearer future.

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.

Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#47 - 2013-01-17 11:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Andreus Ixiris
I don't generally like copypasting posts, but I made this post in the other thread that's talking about this, and I don't really feel like typing out basically the same thing but a bit different, so here it is again:

CSM Minutes wrote:
Two step asked the team if they felt they’d accomplished all that they had set out to accomplish in overhauling the wardec system, as it appeared to him there appeared to be just as much random wardeccing and grief wardeccing as there was before the overhaul. Solomon joked that it would be so much easier to just remove the wardec system completely, to much laughter of the CSM. Then, more seriously, Solomon explained that the designers had been back and forth discussing this question, and that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.

Trebor: There is the important word you just said – mutual conflict. Just as you can have a mutual engagement between two players, you should be able to have a mutual engagement between twogroups. But the current system, it’s a cursed mechanic, because most of the people who get involved want absolutely nothing to do with it.

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?

Alek countered that this more often happened in the reverse – a smaller, say 5-man corp, will wardec a larger 50-man entity, who will just dock up and refuse to fight. Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP.

Alek: As Stoffer [Soundwave] said earlier, you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players.

Alek explained that he has no problem with such a small group paying the price to be able to fight a larger group, and if the larger group refuses to participate, that’s a decision they make for themselves. Meissa countered that Solomon was correct, most high-sec wardecs simply weren’t being fought out. Meissa likened this to simply paying other players to stay docked up.


CSM Minutes wrote:
Fozzie: A wardec where only one side wants to be in it isn't any less legitimate than a bounty that only one side wants. We're not going to go to anyone and ask them if they'd like to accept the bounty placed on them.

Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, it’s not.

SoniClover: The key thing here is that there is a legitimate reason to have a wardec system and that is to allow people to engage in a lethal fight in highsec. And that is important because it should be that the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others.


CSM Minutes wrote:
SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.


They are discussing problems intrinsic to EVE Online's mechanics and culture, which is that 90% of the time, hi-sec wardecs don't go anywhere. In fact, I'd say that for all the mockery people heap on roleplayers, roleplayers are the only people who can consistently get their hi-sec wardecs to actually work properly - because two corporations who have some strong ideological investment in the conflict are going to undock and blow each other's ships up. I wardecced the Naqam corporation back in 2008, and it went absolutely awfully for my corporation but we still undocked (and lost over a billion ISK worth of assets) because we wanted the other side not to win, because they were evil Sansha toasters and Blood Raider child-murderers.

The problem of the wardec system is one of investment, and I praise the CSM and CCP for recognising it. It is very, very rare that a hi-sec corporation is wardecced by another hi-sec corporation of roughly the same size and skill - and in many of the rare circumstances in which it is, it has been pre-arranged anyway. The most useful function of the wardec system I've seen in recent years is when low-sec pirate corporations have a specific target that they want to attack, but they forsee situations in which they may need to engage their enemy on a gate or a station and don't want to worry about having to tank sentry fire.

CCP clearly do not want to turn this game into a themepark. They just recognise that the current state of hi-sec war declaration - where the vast majority of wardecs end with one side docking up - does not make for fun or engaging gameplay.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-01-17 11:47:08 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
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. ^_^


But---but--but....I like you, Solstice!

Please don't make me shoot you....UghUgh

But seriously, Hippo has much more rep in RvB than me, I am basically just another mindless grunt. If Hippo agreed to take care of it, I am positive that you will see very satisfactory results in the nearer future.

Not the point.
The point is that more people supporting the idea,
means more ground for making this happen.

One person is irrelevant. Being it you or Hippo, as long as those in charge have to decide.
Ergo it's about the masses of people supporting an idea.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-01-17 11:52:18 UTC
@ Solstice: Ok. I'll do it, just to keep you from having to buy a new trasher every time you kill a pod.

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.

Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#50 - 2013-01-17 12:00:08 UTC
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.


If Eve were really a cold, dark and harsh world, you wouldn't be able to dock at a station and become invincible for an indefinite period of time that you can also determine how long that period of time will be.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-01-17 12:01:22 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
I want to suggest that we take the pvp out of nul sec. There are to many big alliances in nul sec and carebears cant fly safe there. I tried to mine their with all the nice ore, but its just to evil. Maybe we should set the max size of a nulsec alliance to 50. Then its wayyy safer and all new carebears can also goto nulsec and mine better ore. A lot are probably thinking, wtf is he gone nuts.....well, that's exactly the way a lot of people think this highsec suggestion is.

And if Joe Pod is playing an FPS game and gets shot 89734793 times the moment he starts playing that game for the first time, does he quit the game and move to another game....no he tries to get better and better. Get better guns etc.

Removing pvp from highsec is like removing guns from an fps game......nuts!


Maybe I wasn't clear enough about this:

I do not want wars or pvp to be removed from the game. On the contrary, I want that wars lead to actual pvp again.

If the current mechanics are favoring turtling and station hugging, then those mechanics are bad and need to be changed.

The problem is not the wardec corps.

The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.

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.

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-01-17 12:06:49 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
They are discussing problems intrinsic to EVE Online's mechanics and culture, which is that 90% of the time, hi-sec wardecs don't go anywhere.

The number you are looking for is:
CCP Solomon wrote:
Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

I would argue that in many cases even if wardecs do not directly result in kill(s) , they are good for the game.

    Few examples:

  • A mining corp hires a merc corp to wardec their rival mining corp to keep them out of their belts. This is creates content for all sides of the conflict. The targeted corp has several options to deal with the situation. This is EVE's player interaction by emergent gameplay at its best.

  • A 5 man corporation declares war on Goonswarm and hunts their pilots flying solo in highsec. Perhaps the war will never result in any kills, perhaps it will. The option to do this should always remain in the game.


Looking purely at kills/wardec is a really bad metric for measuring the success or failure of the current game implementation.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-01-17 12:09:54 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
@ Solstice: Ok. I'll do it, just to keep you from having to buy a new trasher every time you kill a pod.

I don't pod RvB members. :p

I just want playmates for me and my future corpmates... :)
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2013-01-17 12:13:44 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.

I agree.
We need to get rid of people who discourage others to fight and we need more people who teach how to fight.
That's not eve-uni, btw. Eve-uni teaches crap.

Now where are my playmates ... ^_^
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#55 - 2013-01-17 12:20:24 UTC
The purpose of war decs is to create player interaction, but the problem with CCP's view of player interaction is that its becoming more and more a topic of "consentual" interaction. They are more often labeling unconsentual interaction as griefing.

The sad part is that while they stifle interesting mechanics like war decs, their fixes are constantly creating new ways to grief instead. Its a stupid cycle. For example Crime Watch was designed to make the whole flagging system simpler, which is great in my opinion, but it has created entire new griefing professions where those mechanics can easily be exploited like Docking Games with the 1 minute timer (still trying to figuire out why it would be made so short).

In any case... simplicity I think is the right approach, but CCP needs to abandon this idea that Eve has to have mechanics that protect people from interaction, and rather create mechanics that make unconsentual intereactions profitable and interesting, while stifiling exploits instead because those are the only types of intereactions that are bad for Eve.

I think a good example of fixing a problem was can flipping. To me the idea that only you and your corp mates could hunt down a thief was stupid. Can flipping itself was and is an awsome mechanic that allows people to play the role of thief... and by openning it up thiefs to all of Eve it allows players to create unconsentual interaction right back at the thief.. This is how you create good mechanics. In the same token however, when an anti-thief engages someone and the theives corp mates show up.. there is this stupid 1 minute timer and again interaction is stifled... this timer needs to be much longer... so that these back and forth intereactions can exist and create interesting and dynamic consequences for both the thief and the heroes.

There is always some lob sided aspect to all of these intereactions and exploitation begins because people figuire out the sequence of events that needs to take place to put their oppoenents against the mechanical wall, rather than things being resolved as they shoot... with two people or teams blowing each other up until one gives up. Mechanics should not throw either side under the bus.

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#56 - 2013-01-17 12:40:37 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
I would argue that in many cases even if wardecs do not directly result in kill(s) , they are good for the game.

    Few examples:

  • A mining corp hires a merc corp to wardec their rival mining corp to keep them out of their belts. This is creates content for all sides of the conflict. The targeted corp has several options to deal with the situation. This is EVE's player interaction by emergent gameplay at its best.

  • A 5 man corporation declares war on Goonswarm and hunts their pilots flying solo in highsec. Perhaps the war will never result in any kills, perhaps it will. The option to do this should always remain in the game.


Looking purely at kills/wardec is a really bad metric for measuring the success or failure of the current game implementation.


I agree! But looking at it from a perspective of whether it produces fun and engaging gameplay most certainly is. Here's an example of what I think the problem with the current system is. Take in mind this is a worst-case scenario and I'm not implying it's indicative of a larger trend in EVE's gameplay (although I think it might happen in reality slightly more often than I or anyone else should be comfortable with).

You have an industrial corporation of ten to fifteen relatively new players mining belts and building frigates. Along comes a hi-sec corporation with about thirty members, dedicated to preying on smaller, unskilled players comes along - "griefers" is a charged word with many excessively negative connotations, so let's call them "vultures" instead. They declare war on our notional industrial corporation, who know for a fact that they cannot possibly win an engagement against an enemy far more skilled and numerous than themselves, so they dock up and consider their options. The vultures are in local all the time, so they certainly can't risk undocking without support.

But wait! Here's an even larger (perhaps sixty-man) PvP corporation - let's call them "mercs" - and they've declared war on the vultures! The mercs might have come for one of many reasons. Maybe our industrial corporation hired them. Maybe someone else has a grudge against the vultures. Maybe one of the vultures has a very high bounty which the mercs intend to collect. Maybe the mercs are simply deeply offended by the vultures' habit of picking on corporations that can't really fight back. Personally that last one is my favourite, but what matters is that the vultures now have enemies that not only fight, but fight well and outnumber them. What do they do?

Well there are many answers to that, but if they're a corporation more used to shooting targets that can't shoot back, they're likely not particularly concerned about other people's opinions of them, so as "dishonourable" as it might be, the clear answer is dock up, of course. The mercs will get bored - and while the industrial corporation still see the vultures in local, it's fairly unlikely they'll undock. So you have two corporations docked up, and one corporation camping the station.

Now this is all very emergent, absolutely, but is it engaging? Is it fun? No. It's not, really.

Now obviously, this is a worst-case scenario, and there are obviously a lot of ways around this - the mercenary corporation could, for instance, say to the industrial corporation "hey, you want to mine in peace and we want to kill these jerkwads that are screwing with you. How about you tank up, go out to the belt and mine like you usually do, and we'll guard you?" But the worst-case scenario illustrates what the problem is - fundamentally, there's no reason to undock during a hi-sec war-dec other than either to do what you normally do but in far riskier circumstances, or to fight the people wardeccing you, and some people are not realistically capable of doing the latter.

Engaging gameplay, not emergent gameplay, is what is most important for EVE Online to have. Yes, a lot of the engagement in EVE Online comes from its highly emergent gameplay, but one must not assume the two are one and the same - some emergent scenarios are not engaging, and do not meaningfully contribute to player enjoyment of the game. At the end of the day, it is engagement with the game, not neccessarily its emergent nature, that keeps EVE's players paying subscriptions.

What CCP needs to do is make the wardec mechanics engaging, and give players a genuine reason to undock even if their circumstances are not neccessarily favourable, and do it in a way that does not detract from the game's emergent nature. This is what the CSM minutes are discussing.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#57 - 2013-01-17 12:48:05 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
If the current mechanics are favoring turtling and station hugging, then those mechanics are bad and need to be changed. The problem is not the wardec corps. The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.


That's where things go wrong, we dec smal and bigger alliances/corps every day and have no problems at all with people 'being docked'. The targets have a few options. Stay docked and your alliance/corps dies, get allies into your war or fight..... Just because people dont know how to hunt, doenst make the mechanism bad. Its like saying, I cant kill with this gun, so it must be a bad gun. Wrong....you have no idea how to use that gun properly.

My advice to CCP, stop trying to 'fix' things that aint broken, but focus on more important stuff, like bug fixing and better logs.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#58 - 2013-01-17 13:06:22 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#59 - 2013-01-17 13:07:01 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!


Preach the good word, brother Kainotomiu.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-01-17 13:07:21 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
If the current mechanics are favoring turtling and station hugging, then those mechanics are bad and need to be changed. The problem is not the wardec corps. The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.


That's where things go wrong, we dec smal and bigger alliances/corps every day and have no problems at all with people 'being docked'. The targets have a few options. Stay docked and your alliance/corps dies, get allies into your war or fight..... Just because people dont know how to hunt, doenst make the mechanism bad. Its like saying, I cant kill with this gun, so it must be a bad gun. Wrong....you have no idea how to use that gun properly.

My advice to CCP, stop trying to 'fix' things that aint broken, but focus on more important stuff, like bug fixing and better logs.

This, btw, reminds me about how borked the evelopedia-entry about instaundocks is.