These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#141 - 2013-01-18 02:21:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
It's pretty obvious that CCP will have none of it, but the elephant is in the room and as the foundation of Eve it's only right that non mutual PvP be discussed so that everybody is absolutely clear on Eve and what it is and what is not.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2013-01-18 02:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Qvar Dar'Zanar
Adriel Malakai wrote:

The big thing I'm making a stink about is the fact that discussion between CCP and the CSM had people on both sides advocate that only consensual decs should be allowed in high sec. I'm not screaming that they're removing war decs, I'm pointing out how dumb of idea it is to remove non-consensual wars.


Well, I'm no english native so I may be getting it wrong, but what I understand of the quoted text in the OP isn't an idea about 'making wars only possible if mutual', not at all. I understand it as CCP wanting the decced corp to have some actual reason to undock, figth back and kill attackers, thus making the will to figth mutual.

Like... Placing the wardec fee as bounties on the heads of the deccing corp, only claimables by the decced corp.
This as you can see is very far from stopping anybody from deccing other people, and should in fact encourage pvp a bit more (not a perfect solution I know, I just wanted to give an example).
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#143 - 2013-01-18 02:25:34 UTC
People who don't want to PvP, won't PvP, they'll dock up and blueball attackers. Regardless of rewards for actually fighting a war you can't force people into it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Aria Lykryng
Doomheim
#144 - 2013-01-18 02:28:50 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Yeah that's the problem, people refusing to fight. The war dec mechanic issue is somewhat academic, really. They'll use whatever is available to avoid the fight, when in fact "fight" is the point of the game.

Problem permeates every aspect of the game. Even hardened PVP'ers try to disengage and avoid when the fight goes sour.

Maybe they need to make all rewards happen when you see your own ship explode.





'Not fighting' is a form of fighting. It makes people angry, cry and say bad things in local which can be utilized to get them banned. That's a win no?


The only way to get people to undock and fight is to give them a reason to do it. Corporate or Alliance pride just isn't there anymore due to the fact it is so easy to disband and create a new corporation. Perhaps some sort of corporate adjustments or rewards for corporate/alliance age would cause people to keep them going and take pride in them. Maybe new rewards or options within your corp settings for ISK destroyed etc etc... such as corporate emblems for ships... you can only change tax rate to a certain minimum % based of age... I dont know.


Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2013-01-18 02:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Qvar Dar'Zanar
Aria Lykryng wrote:

The only way to get people to undock and fight is to give them a reason to do it. Corporate or Alliance pride just isn't there anymore due to the fact it is so easy to disband and create a new corporation. Perhaps some sort of corporate adjustments or rewards for corporate/alliance age would cause people to keep them going and take pride in them. Maybe new rewards or options within your corp settings for ISK destroyed etc etc... such as corporate emblems for ships... you can only change tax rate to a certain minimum % based of age... I dont know.


The problem to fix isn't people hopping out of the corp. I bet they would rather not. Like somebody said before, they either hop or stop logging because they cannot stand not undocked. Griefdecs are the problem, and hopping is just the consequence.
Giving benefeits to older corps would just be a form of force people to not hop, still having them stationspinning and ultimately quitting.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#146 - 2013-01-18 02:40:03 UTC
Long story short, if you can't defend your corp you shouldn't have one. When a corp has 20 mackinaw pilots and 2 guys who actually know how to fit a Rifter for PVP, OF COURSE they are going to suffer losses to stronger opponents. You shouldn't be able to opt out of PVP simply because you aren't ready for it.

One of the consequences of creating a corp is the possibility of war. Accept it.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#147 - 2013-01-18 02:42:43 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
People who don't want to PvP, won't PvP, they'll dock up and blueball attackers. Regardless of rewards for actually fighting a war you can't force people into it.

No, but an inactive enemy is a defeated enemy. If you won't come out of the station while I'm free to go about my business, I've won the war without firing a shot.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#148 - 2013-01-18 02:45:07 UTC
Very true, blueballing doesn't stop you going about your business.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Aria Lykryng
Doomheim
#149 - 2013-01-18 02:46:15 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
Aria Lykryng wrote:

The only way to get people to undock and fight is to give them a reason to do it. Corporate or Alliance pride just isn't there anymore due to the fact it is so easy to disband and create a new corporation. Perhaps some sort of corporate adjustments or rewards for corporate/alliance age would cause people to keep them going and take pride in them. Maybe new rewards or options within your corp settings for ISK destroyed etc etc... such as corporate emblems for ships... you can only change tax rate to a certain minimum % based of age... I dont know.


The problem to fix isn't people hopping out of the corp. I bet they would rather not. Like somebody said before, they either hop or stop logging because they cannot stand not undocked. Griefdecs are the problem, and hopping is just the consequence.
Giving benefeits to older corps would just be a form of force people to not hop, still having them stationspinning and ultimately quitting.


"I am William Wallace Capsuleer. And I see a whole army of my corporate mates,
here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And
free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?"
"Two against ten?" - the veteran shouted. "No! We will
run - and live!"
"Yes!" Wallace shouted back. "Fight and you may die. Run and you
will live at least awhile. And mindnumbingly mining in your asteroid belt many years from now,
would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for
one chance, just one chance, to come back here as young capsuleers and tell
our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take
our freedom!"


Get their blood pumpin to undock!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2013-01-18 02:48:58 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Very true, blueballing doesn't stop you going about your business.

Yet with corp hoping those dec'd aren't stopped either.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2013-01-18 02:55:26 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Long story short, if you can't defend your corp you shouldn't have one. When a corp has 20 mackinaw pilots and 2 guys who actually know how to fit a Rifter for PVP, OF COURSE they are going to suffer losses to stronger opponents. You shouldn't be able to opt out of PVP simply because you aren't ready for it.

One of the consequences of creating a corp is the possibility of war. Accept it.


Circular fallacy.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#152 - 2013-01-18 03:13:59 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Long story short, if you can't defend your corp you shouldn't have one. When a corp has 20 mackinaw pilots and 2 guys who actually know how to fit a Rifter for PVP, OF COURSE they are going to suffer losses to stronger opponents. You shouldn't be able to opt out of PVP simply because you aren't ready for it.

One of the consequences of creating a corp is the possibility of war. Accept it.


Circular fallacy.

No. It's a part of game mechanics. It has been since (as far as I know) the inception of the game. Eve is about competition. Competition can happen in high sec, and PVP can and should remain an option there. That mining corp that's encroaching on your turf, wiping out the rocks before your miners log on? Wardec them.

You shouldn't run a level 4 mission if you don't have the skills to field a properly-fitted ship for it.

You shouldn't warp into an incursion site without a proper fleet.

You shouldn't set up a POS if you can't maintain the logistics for it.

You shouldn't grab sovereignty if your alliance can't use, support, and defend it.

Why in the WORLD is anyone wanting CCP to change this one mechanic to remove consequences for people who fail to prepare for a possibility that has existed as long as Eve has?

If the problem is that people are quitting Eve because they don't understand war, then CCP needs to explain war to them. If the problem is that they're being idiots during war and then quitting because of it...well, you can't help that. They'll find other ways to be idiots and quit.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2013-01-18 03:18:14 UTC
So your thought is that people shouldn't have to PvP until they decide they're ready for it? In my experience, people either think they're ready immediatly or never think they're ready.

Or, if we built a system on that logic, people would, on purpose, never become ready for it.
Paul Maken
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#154 - 2013-01-18 03:33:49 UTC
The current war declaration system is broken. It's not broken because the aggressor can go kick over some innocent defender's sandcastle. It's broken because the aggressor doesn't have their own sandcastle to defend.

My experience with war declarations has been that the aggressor is usually the smaller corporation, and all they do is high sec war. They declare war on a large number of corporations in order to have sufficient number of targets and then they either hunt mission runners or camp a high sec gate.

In most cases, the defenders could smash the aggressor very easily if they had a way of forcing a fight. The problem is that the aggressors have plenty of neutral alts to watch surrounding systems, and high sec is full of stations where they can dock up if the defenders form up in numbers.

Since high sec war is all the aggressor does, they never have need to fly through gates alone or do missions. This does not expose them to sufficient risk to let the defenders have a chance to force a non-consensual fight on the aggressor.

What I would like to see is some sort of objective by which the defender can win a war. Tie the war to some sort of anchored structure that the defender can destroy if the aggressor is unwilling to fight the fair (or unfair) fight. Make that structure expensive enough that when the defender wins the war by blowing it up, the loss is painful to the aggressor.

If you want the defenders in wars to fight back, then their FCs need the ability to form fleets. You don't get many volunteers asking people to form up to get blue balled. You get fleets together by going to extract ISK and tears from your enemy.

Too many times I've seen a friendly fleet get a jump away from the aggressor war targets just to have their neutral eyes report us so they can easily dock up before we can fight. If the aggressor isn't willing to fight the war they started then I should get to stomp on their sand castle and watch the ocean refill the crater left behind.

Wars don't need to be mutual, but the risk needs to be.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#155 - 2013-01-18 03:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Paul Maken wrote:
The current war declaration system is broken. It's not broken because the aggressor can go kick over some innocent defender's sandcastle. It's broken because the aggressor doesn't have their own sandcastle to defend.

My experience with war declarations has been that the aggressor is usually the smaller corporation, and all they do is high sec war. They declare war on a large number of corporations in order to have sufficient number of targets and then they either hunt mission runners or camp a high sec gate.

In most cases, the defenders could smash the aggressor very easily if they had a way of forcing a fight. The problem is that the aggressors have plenty of neutral alts to watch surrounding systems, and high sec is full of stations where they can dock up if the defenders form up in numbers.

Since high sec war is all the aggressor does, they never have need to fly through gates alone or do missions. This does not expose them to sufficient risk to let the defenders have a chance to force a non-consensual fight on the aggressor.

What I would like to see is some sort of objective by which the defender can win a war. Tie the war to some sort of anchored structure that the defender can destroy if the aggressor is unwilling to fight the fair (or unfair) fight. Make that structure expensive enough that when the defender wins the war by blowing it up, the loss is painful to the aggressor.

If you want the defenders in wars to fight back, then their FCs need the ability to form fleets. You don't get many volunteers asking people to form up to get blue balled. You get fleets together by going to extract ISK and tears from your enemy.

Too many times I've seen a friendly fleet get a jump away from the aggressor war targets just to have their neutral eyes report us so they can easily dock up before we can fight. If the aggressor isn't willing to fight the war they started then I should get to stomp on their sand castle and watch the ocean refill the crater left behind.

Wars don't need to be mutual, but the risk needs to be.


Personally, I love it when the defenders form up fleets. That's the entire reason why we do fun decs. We go after people who look like they'll come after us. The problem we face is that they make that decision once. They lose their fleet and never come back, it's sad really.

Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that adding more structure grinding to the game is a healthy decision, even in high sec. That's why I'm advocating the modified mutual dec system. If the defender is capable, they should be able to punish the aggressor by keeping them locked in the war for a long period of time. This forces the aggressors to decide between fighting, hiding, running, not logging in, dropping corp, etc - the exact same options given to the defender when the aggressor is doing well. Adding arbitrary structure grinds (which suck for everyone involved) is not the right path.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#156 - 2013-01-18 04:19:43 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:

Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that adding more structure grinding to the game is a healthy decision, even in high sec. That's why I'm advocating the modified mutual dec system. If the defender is capable, they should be able to punish the aggressor by keeping them locked in the war for a long period of time. This forces the aggressors to decide between fighting, hiding, running, not logging in, dropping corp, etc - the exact same options given to the defender when the aggressor is doing well. Adding arbitrary structure grinds (which suck for everyone involved) is not the right path.


They can do that now. It's called a wardec. If you're clearly winning a war that was declared on you and you want to punish them for it, become the aggressor. You can then dictate the terms of the war. No need for new mechanics.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Kestrix
Gallente Federation Private Members Club.
Mortis Primus
#157 - 2013-01-18 04:48:30 UTC
Quote:
Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, it’s not.


Concord protects nobody, they are a reactionary body that provide nothing more than consequences after the act!

Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#158 - 2013-01-18 05:13:58 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.

Did you know that there wasn't always a war declaration system in EVE right? I mean EVE was fine then, and I'm sure it will be a great game after the mechanic is tweaked.
Kamden Line
Sovereign Citizen and other Tax Evasion Schemes
#159 - 2013-01-18 05:35:51 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:

Personally, I love it when the defenders form up fleets. That's the entire reason why we do fun decs. We go after people who look like they'll come after us. The problem we face is that they make that decision once. They lose their fleet and never come back, it's sad really.

Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that adding more structure grinding to the game is a healthy decision, even in high sec. That's why I'm advocating the modified mutual dec system. If the defender is capable, they should be able to punish the aggressor by keeping them locked in the war for a long period of time. This forces the aggressors to decide between fighting, hiding, running, not logging in, dropping corp, etc - the exact same options given to the defender when the aggressor is doing well. Adding arbitrary structure grinds (which suck for everyone involved) is not the right path.


You do realise that high sec wardeccers specialize in killing the unwary and the stupid? Forcing a dec shield long term duration war dec literally does not change how these corporations operate - they're in to shoot at flashy reds, regardless of how long they've been at war with said corp. Long war dec durations don't force high sec war deccers to do anything at all, mostly because their style of play is catered to just that - catch the stupid and the unwary, fade into the ether when you get RvB style frigate gangs on you.

The best comparison would be a NPC 0.0 corporation - harass your neighbhoring neuts for a while, and when they undock an enromous blob, dock up. Your enemy can't force you to do anything when you're in station.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#160 - 2013-01-18 07:57:17 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
People who don't want to PvP, won't PvP, they'll dock up and blueball attackers. Regardless of rewards for actually fighting a war you can't force people into it.

No, but an inactive enemy is a defeated enemy. If you won't come out of the station while I'm free to go about my business, I've won the war without firing a shot.



Entirely untrue, or do you think the "PvP" only extends to the shooty type? Actually, you probably do.


Finally, I had a good chuckle at the number of people damning docking up to hell, as if they'll fly head first guns blazing into a swarm of angry reds over and over and over Lol I'm sure you hull tank too, because that's what Real Men™ do Blink