These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Declarations need Reform

Author
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-06-04 12:56:45 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ouch, you wrote a lot of stuff. I can't start quoting specific things at this point so I'll just loosely address what you said, in order, in a numbered list.

1. Money is money, and ships cost money, just like POS modules. Requiring aggressors to own POSes wouldn't change anything since they'd be prepared to lose them, just like they're prepared to lose ships.

2. The existence of victory conditions might be a good addition, but once again, if most people are unwilling to fight spaceships, they will also be unwilling to siege POSes.

3. Large alliances rarely go after much smaller entities. In fact the opposite is true, to the extent that CCP had to turn war fees into a pay-per-target ordeal.

4. Entities who declare wars do have something to lose; their ships, pods, implants, property, et cetera. Just because the defenders are unwilling to cause those losses doesn't mean the attackers aren't putting themselves at risk. So yes, you can ruin the attackers' day just fine, on your own initiative.

5. "If you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp" is a rather accurate sentiment, although it's more along the lines of "if you can't defend your property, don't expose said property to the additional risk inherent in the player corporation system." Player corporations aren't an entitlement; they're a privilege. If you can't hold your own in-game, then stick to the NPC corporations, or get into a well-run player corporation that can hold its own to learn the ropes before you go out to make your own.

6. From my own experience as someone who has conducted over a thousand wars during the past half decade alone, I can tell you that the grand majority of corporations that aren't interested in pvp will not defend themselves if exposed to it.

7. Sure, I'd wardec you. Who's your main? And no, you won't break my ****, lol. I've caused more people to quit this game than the amount of terrorists the US has killed in Afghanistan. Yes, I keep count.

8. This game isn't a direct representation of real life. We fly spaceships, and shoot big guns. When there's a conflict of interest in regard to natural resources or the market, we don't sue opposing parties in the court of CCP. In fact, such avenues aren't even available to us, because they don't exist. But guns exist, and the ability to use them on other players exists too. That's pretty much the point of EVE Online.

9. Yeah, in EVE, you pretty much have the right to wipe out competing businesses. Once again, this is a game based on unrealistic principles. You'll have to deal with this, or find another game.

10. High-sec is merely "safer." It doesn't mean that the safety is absolute.

11. Wars have actually been in the game since the beginning, pretty much. They certainly didn't come out a "few years ago."

12. You can avoid wars pretty easily. Also, if you don't have roles, you can leave a corporation whenever you want. Corp-hopping has been a pretty big issue for the past few years.

13. "So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified?" Yes.


Yes, this is getting a bit longer than I'm willing to invest time :)

I really don't feel like addressing this point by point seeing as a lot of your responses aren't exactly completely relevant to the subject. Remember that what I am calling for is a means to retaliate meaningfully; a means to fight a war to its completion. No more. No less. I never said high sec 100% safe, I never said everyone would engage in my proposed war mechanics and I said war decs should be outright removed. None of the what if's or anecdotal accounts are relevant.

So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why?

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#62 - 2013-06-04 12:59:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Baldour Ngarr wrote:
Again you miss the point. The OP is not asking how he can arrange an end to the war; he's asking how he can actually make the declaring corporation LOSE, by them being told the war is over whether they like it or not.

You want a victory condition for the defending side in a war, but no victory conditions exist for the attacking side either. What, do you propose that the same conditions be applied to the defenders in a mirrored fashion? You think that the attackers would want to superfluously end their war in this manner? No, they wage war for a cause, and no matter what it is, it's virtually impossible to set up a workable system of victory conditions for the attackers that is both meaningful and can't be exploited by the defenders.

What if the goal of the attackers is to prevent the defenders from going to mine certain belts, or from trading in certain stations? Do you even know how impossible it would be for the developers to create winning conditions for the attackers in such an open-ended environment?

But go ahead, press your POS idea; it won't work the way you think it will. Do you really think that a bunch of miner bears will muster the troops to siege a death star in high sec? It's painful even when you have a good fleet of pvpers who can fly ships beyond haulers and mining barges. Good luck.

Prototype SV-17 wrote:
So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why?

I have nothing against the idea if it's properly implemented, but like I just said, it's impossible to implement victory conditions in such an open-ended environment, without transforming EVE pvp into a WoW-style battlegrounds experience.

The only thing that can remotely work is a simple tally of monetary damage caused, with a tie ruling in favor of the attackers (otherwise staying logged off for a week would make the defenders win by default). Anything else would require an infinite number of programming hours, because you can't create a system that uniformly enforces free-form contracts.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#63 - 2013-06-04 13:16:14 UTC
Baldour Ngarr wrote:
OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war?


You clearly have no idea how wardecs work. There is such a mechanic. Read this thread carefully and you will find it. Or spend 5 minutes googling. I was about to tell you all about it, but then I thought, "no... Cannibal Kane can teach him better than I can..."

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-06-04 13:33:34 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:


Prototype SV-17 wrote:
So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why?

I have nothing against the idea if it's properly implemented, but like I just said, it's impossible to implement victory conditions in such an open-ended environment, without transforming EVE pvp into a WoW-style battlegrounds experience.

The only thing that can remotely work is a simple tally of monetary damage caused, with a tie ruling in favor of the attackers (otherwise staying logged off for a week would make the defenders win by default). Anything else would require an infinite number of programming hours, because you can't create a system that uniformly enforces free-form contracts.


If there are no victory conditions you have no war. And it's just a means to circumvent high sec and force non-consensual PvP on people without any repercussions. Nothing more. Nothing less. As there is no goal or reason other than pew-pew (typically against noobs who can't defend themselves) it has no legitimacy. In a game where time spent in-game reflects total skill points and hence total skill, high sec needs to serve as a new player nursery and relative safety net. If some guy who's been playing for 10 years wants to PvP he should look in low/null where there is an expectation of aggression. Not in high sec looking for 1 week old players who may very well NEVER catch up to him due to Eve's progression mechanics. It doesn't matter if you log in once a day for 1 minute or play 18 hours a day/7 days a week you take the same time to skill up.


If the POS costs lots of ISK and requires lots of time to construct (not some little tower that can be set in a day) I don't see why such structures can't be used as determining factors in war.
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-06-04 13:43:29 UTC
Lexar Mundi wrote:
[quote=Prototype SV-17]
So you are saying I should not be able to war dec ice miners just because i want an ice belt all to myself? I think that is part of war. You fight over resources no matter where they are.




I'm imagining Nike repeatedly killing immortal Adidas employees - pointlessly and to no end, might I add - and calling it a "war". Roll Or Walmart literally killing the competition.

No, at no point do I ever request that war decs be taken out. And it's not a part of war. The war dec system does not facilitate war. It facilitates unprovoked, unsolicited PvP in high sec, thus defeating the point in high sec. It's like saying low sec is a warzone. It's not. I can be, but the ability to attack another player is not the definition of war.

I'm seeing a consistent use of strawmen arguments being used in this thread to avoid the actual subject. The only request being made is that corp making unprovoked war decs most have costly destructible assets, which upon destruction remove their ability to war and thus signify terms of defeat. (i.e. wars can be won and lost and aren't just a cheap means to force PvP on people and circumvent high sec rules.)

The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills. The not-so-elusive "PvP carebears" who are quick to mock those so-called "carebears" who they terrorize (noobs with shallow pockets), but the mere thought that someone could terrorize them back in a meaningful way and dictate their gaming experience sends them into panic mode. It's utter hypocrisy.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#66 - 2013-06-04 13:47:02 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
If there are no victory conditions you have no war. And it's just a means to circumvent high sec and force non-consensual PvP on people without any repercussions. Nothing more. Nothing less. As there is no goal or reason other than pew-pew (typically against noobs who can't defend themselves) it has no legitimacy. In a game where time spent in-game reflects total skill points and hence total skill, high sec needs to serve as a new player nursery and relative safety net. If some guy who's been playing for 10 years wants to PvP he should look in low/null where there is an expectation of aggression. Not in high sec looking for 1 week old players who may very well NEVER catch up to him due to Eve's progression mechanics. It doesn't matter if you log in once a day for 1 minute or play 18 hours a day/7 days a week you take the same time to skill up.

Okay, you hit like every troll point in that response, so I'm not sure I want to play with that. Someone else might, though.

Prototype SV-17 wrote:
If the POS costs lots of ISK and requires lots of time to construct (not some little tower that can be set in a day) I don't see why such structures can't be used as determining factors in war.

Because the defenders set up their POSes for industry, and the attackers will set them up purely for combat survival. The same relationship will exist between the attackers' POSes and the defenders that already exists between the attackers' ships and the members. If the defenders are unwilling to undock and fight a five-man aggressor corporation today, they sure as hell won't be willing to undock and fight a large tower with eleven hardeners, sixty ECM batteries, and medium artillery.

Also, all POSes pretty much take the same amount of time to set up. It's not really a job that takes over three hours, even with lots of modules.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#67 - 2013-06-04 14:06:33 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills.

You talk about strawmen and then give us a little gem like that and that just kills off whatever credibility your arguments had up to that point.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2013-06-04 14:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
you don't want wardecs reformed, you want them removed

seriously why do hiseccers whine, whine, whine whenever they realize that something exists that allows them to be blown up? when they don't whine about suicide ganking, they whine about wardecs; when they don't whine about wardecs, they whine about getting popped in lowsec

this is a game about blowing ships up. don't like it? keep your $15/month and get out

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2013-06-04 15:00:05 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Because the defenders set up their POSes for industry, and the attackers will set them up purely for combat survival. The same relationship will exist between the attackers' POSes and the defenders that already exists between the attackers' ships and the members. If the defenders are unwilling to undock and fight a five-man aggressor corporation today, they sure as hell won't be willing to undock and fight a large tower with eleven hardeners, sixty ECM batteries, and medium artillery.

Also, all POSes pretty much take the same amount of time to set up. It's not really a job that takes over three hours, even with lots of modules.


If you're just going to cry troll and act indignant when someone doesn't share your views, we can just stop this right now. Let's not play the little internet victim game.

Any change can't be judged on current mechanics. Changes are never as simple as one facet. The POS station used in this case could be one specific to warfare. (i.e. an HQ base which is standard across the board). The defenders don't have to worry about this as they aren't the one's issuing unprovoked wars. The aggressors wouldn't destroy the defenders HQ base even if they had one as they'd want to continue the war for their own entertainment.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if corp B won't come out to fight corp A. That's their individual choice to hide under a rock. But just because you have some anecdotes concerning some corps within the confines of current mechanics doesn't mean that every corp in existence wouldn't utilize an opportunity to fight a war to an end.

Should the option not exist for anyone because (potentially) some would not use it?
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-06-04 15:06:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
you don't want wardecs reformed, you want them removed



Strawman.

Andski wrote:


seriously why do hiseccers whine, whine, whine whenever they realize that something exists that allows them to be blown up? when they don't whine about suicide ganking, they whine about wardecs; when they don't whine about wardecs, they whine about getting popped in lowsec



Ad Hominem.

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2013-06-04 15:22:54 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.

And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.

I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?



Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.



If you want care-free happy lala land, you're in the wrong mmo.

In eve, if you want to feel safe, understand that NPC's will not provide this for you. Either yourself or other players are the only thing in eve that can provide you with the security you desire.


If you don't like it, most people will tell you to htfu or leave. I would suggest to you that you give it a try, and you might find interacting with people ( even when it's in a way you'd rather not ) can be far more entertaining than most other mmo premises.

Even losing your ships can sometimes create the greatest war stories.


I hope you learn to love eve, but either way,


Fly well or fare-well,

o/

Ris Dnalor

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2013-06-04 15:29:45 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills. The not-so-elusive "PvP carebears" who are quick to mock those so-called "carebears" who they terrorize (noobs with shallow pockets), but the mere thought that someone could terrorize them back in a meaningful way and dictate their gaming experience sends them into panic mode. It's utter hypocrisy.


Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Strawman.


and thank you for playing

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Troedoff Dude
Potato Security
#73 - 2013-06-04 15:48:32 UTC
OP you sir are an idiot. I routinely fly ships that cost ten times as much as a pos. If you take one of my pos's down, I'll put up ten more. They aren't that large of an expense. Blow up a handful of my faction fit pirate ships or other shinies and you dent my wallet. This probably sounds foreign to you, but I make my isk with MasterCard, and I don't care if I make one single isk, or loot one wreck. I play eve to blow **** up. Your **** my **** everybodies ****. Good luck mining, and doing whatever carebearish things you do, seeya soon.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-06-04 16:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? ...

I was going to explain the rationale for this game mechanic here, but this and this should cover it nicely.

p.s.
WoW is that way ArrowArrowArrowArrowArrow

p.p.s.
I was going to dec you, but your hiding out in an NPC corp. ::sadpanda:: Will you be joining a real corp anytime soon? Cry
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#75 - 2013-06-05 03:07:01 UTC
So the scenario seems to be boiling down to a 'capture the flag' scenario in a way? or destroy the flag may be more like it.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?

Canthan Rogue
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2013-06-05 03:24:38 UTC
Let's be honest, most high sec war decs do not result in quality PvP. Nothing of value will be lost if wealthy, high SP players will no longer be able to gate camp or play station games with newbie corps. If you want to encourage PvP, the way to do it is to get people out of high sec with various incentives, not to facilitate high sec PvP through one particular broken mechanic.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2013-06-05 19:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Canthan Rogue wrote:
Let's be honest, most high sec war decs do not result in quality PvP. Nothing of value will be lost if wealthy, high SP players will no longer be able to gate camp or play station games with newbie corps. If you want to encourage PvP, the way to do it is to get people out of high sec with various incentives, not to facilitate high sec PvP through one particular broken mechanic.


i'm sorry that your 3000-man highsec-based alliance with far more high-SP characters than any wardec corp can't take on the famous PvP powerhouse that is "German Freakshow" but that doesn't mean wardecs need to go, nor does it make them broken

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2013-06-05 19:13:57 UTC
also if you want playstyle segregation, kindly find the door

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-06-05 20:24:01 UTC
Troedoff Dude wrote:
OP you sir are an idiot. I routinely fly ships that cost ten times as much as a pos. If you take one of my pos's down, I'll put up ten more. They aren't that large of an expense. Blow up a handful of my faction fit pirate ships or other shinies and you dent my wallet. This probably sounds foreign to you, but I make my isk with MasterCard, and I don't care if I make one single isk, or loot one wreck. I play eve to blow **** up. Your **** my **** everybodies ****. Good luck mining, and doing whatever carebearish things you do, seeya soon.

Part of the goal here isn't just isk damage. In fact isk damage for a defender may well be entirely irrelevant. Even if the defender takes down 1B while only losing 10m themselves it's in the end just a 10m loss in addition to the general disruptive nature of the wardec. Since that disruption is what is meaningful, being able to end the war is likely to be of far greater value then being able to "hurt" the wallets of people whom if they are smart are only fielding what they are prepared to lose.

Having war goals isn't about hurting the attacker's wallet, it's about getting back to doing what you were doing before the war quicker.
Beliar Gray
I'm quitting Eve PV Rock I want to talk with you
#80 - 2013-06-05 20:31:50 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.


/thread