These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2013-06-05 20:52:27 UTC
Canthan Rogue wrote:
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.


okay let's nerf incursions into the ground, like so far into the ground that the incursion "communities" will dissolve and maybe have their members pay out of pocket for their accounts, or better yet, get out

Twitter: @EVEAndski

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

BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#82 - 2013-06-06 09:36:47 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. 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.



You still have not stated which high sec rules are being 'circumvented' in wardecs. I know this has been stated before, but every time you undock you are consenting to possible pvp. The thing is for noobs to learn this as quickly as possible and learn what they can do to minimize their losses which many of them do with the help of other pilots and corporations.

A noob may never catch up skill wise to a 10yr old player, but that does not mean that he cannot join a corporation who can whoop 10yr old butts.

Because you dont' like the idea of wardec PvP for the sake of PvP does not mean that isn't a good reason or a good goal for many of the players of EvE. It doesn't make it illegit or even wrong as you make it out to be.

You have your own code of how you think EvE should be played. Like the 10 year old pilot you mentioned above. You say that he should only look in low or null for a fight. Why? Because you are trying to push your own gaming values on everyone else.

That 10 year old pilot earned the right to fight whoever he wants and play as he wants. As you do. Yes, someone's play style will impact your play style, even violently without provocation. That is how the devs intended this game to work, even in high sec.

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

Cismet
Immortal Lunatics
Ministry of Aggressive Destruction
#83 - 2013-06-06 12:04:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Cismet
You know, the mechanism of having a PoS probably won't work and having a free-form contractual system won't work (for system/development reasons more than anything else) but I do like the idea of wars that have consequences and the potential to end for both sides.

Your "aggressors" do it for whatever reason, causing massive destruction, griefing, disruption to a mining operation to allow their own miners to work the area, whatever their reasons are, the power to continue/end that war is with the attackers and only with the attackers. The attackers can choose entirely when to end the war and the defenders pretty much get no choice out of it. Sure they can make the war mutual but there are mechanics around that introduces a while ago if memory serves. What would be nice would be some way for both sides to be able to end the war as per the OP. Difficult to implement and possibly unused by some corps who will probably turtle up but having the ability to end the war (and stop an immediate war-dec again) would be nice for the defenders. It would give some of the corps something to AIM for in a war instead of just survival. The game maybe about survival but that doesn't mean it can't be more interesting. For the attackers their goal to "end the war" could just be a number they have to reach in assets destroyed that they get to put in. If they want their war to basically be a free for all they just add a ridiculously high number that would be impossible to reach (I'm thinking tens of thousands of trillions of ISK here). For the defenders it could be "keep from losing more than a percentage cost of your total assets as a corp" which could be conditional on spending x hours per day in-space or online or the Aggressors can keep the war going for free. If you can keep your assets from being lost then after the week is up you win and the Aggressors can't re-dec for a calendar month perhaps?

There could be others and choices could be offered when a war is created of victory conditions for each side. The aforementioned could be examples, the defenders could choose to have to kill a percentage of the aggressor's stuff in a single week etc.

i don't think this will damage the war declaration system, I think it will turn it into something more interesting that the defenders have a chance at winning on their terms. At the moment everything is on the aggressor's terms which is I think where the problem lies. Yes your uber-powerful corp can still attack a smaller corp which cannot win in a straight fight but if they can out-think and keep their losses below a certain threshold (determined by the value of their assets or some other meaningful mechanism) then that makes war declarations interesting for both sides.
Daniel Whateley
#84 - 2013-06-16 07:22:36 UTC
Because eve is a PVP game, go back to WoW, you'll be happier raiding dungeons there.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2013-06-16 19:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
My opinion, that one should not need a good reason to destroy someones space-day aside, one of the fun things about Eve is, that PvP doesn't necessarily happen just for PvPs sake or because "abloobloo, the other guy started it". Not all the time, but sometimes Eve players fight for very strong reasons, as far as videogames go.

Sometimes you fight over a humiliation or a personal dispute between the mighty, sometimes you fight out of spite, sometimes you fight over trade routes, space, resources. Sometimes you even fight because you consider the other party to be a looming threat to your and your friends interests or just because you feel that you need to prove something. Most of these reasons were at some point or are still considered valid reasons to start a war in real world history - at the very least by the warmongering party, and they certainly are valid reasons to start a war in a videogame that stands and falls with its armed conflicts.

Now, with all those diverse and more often than not rather complex reasons, how do you expect a computer to decide, which one is valid and which one is not? Or should CCP maybe employ a few "judges" to decide if a declaration of war is justified?


As for the Idea with the POS: It would not change anything besides making the cost to declare a war a bit higher. A highsec wardec corp could just put down a large POS at the arse end of nowhere, filled to the brim with ECM and hardeners. So many hours of fun and excitement shooting that thing without Dreadnaughts, provided you can even find it before the war ends.

Or they will just slap an alibi-small-tower on some random moon at the price of not even a single fitted battlecruiser, let alone the pirate faction and T3 cruisers "evil" people like to fly so much these days.

If the defending party really wanted to hurt the attackers, they best grew a pair and put up an actual defense. The attacker can not use any tactics the defender can't just use as well, and more often than not, empire wardeccers tend to fly hilariously overpriced pimpmobiles.
Axefork
#86 - 2013-06-16 19:35:04 UTC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the episode of Jericho, see Casus Belli (Jericho episode). For the similar term "acts of war", see Acts of war (disambiguation).

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means bellic ("of war"). It is usually distinguished from casus foederis, where casus belli refers to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and casus foederis refers to offenses or threats to a fellow allied nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO.

The term came into wide usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory".[3][4] Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.

Proschema (plural proschemata) is the Greek equivalent term. The stated reasons may or may not be the actual reason for waging the war (prophasis, πρóφασις). The term was first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, who identified fear, honor, and interest as the three primary real reasons that wars are waged, while proschemata commonly play up nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to rational or reasonable fears).
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2013-06-16 19:58:42 UTC
Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say with this quote?
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
The Pursuit of Happiness
#88 - 2013-06-16 20:51:35 UTC
CCP has said multiple times that EVE should be a hostile place where your day could be ruined any moment.

As the person that declares all of the wars for Whores in Space I am highly against your proposals. Eve should never be safe, even in high sec, so do not try to make it so.

What is your "reason" to not be war decced? Because you want to be make money risk free?

What would be my "reason" to dec you? To make sure you don't make money risk free.

In the real world it is impossible to make money without risk. Why are you so special?

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

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment

voxile
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-06-17 01:09:45 UTC
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.

Does that sound like a good compromise to you?

umm.. no


[quote=Destiny Corrupted]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.

lol, you might be a little biased on the whole wardec toppic. ya think


BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#90 - 2013-06-17 05:32:50 UTC
Axefork wrote:


Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.



I'll lay out my reasons for going to war: Because I want to.

I'll lay out the steps that may avert it: Pay me Isk

end of story

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

voxile
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-06-19 20:14:25 UTC
hate to see this discussion end..Big smile
Cismet
Immortal Lunatics
Ministry of Aggressive Destruction
#92 - 2013-09-03 10:09:57 UTC
Daniel Whateley wrote:
Because eve is a PVP game, go back to WoW, you'll be happier raiding dungeons there.


I'm not sure that this was directed at me or not but I'll address it nonetheless. Congratulations on giving out the ******** answer that is absolutely meaningless in what was an interesting discussion. "Becauthe it'th PVP and I don't wanna", what are you, 2 years old? Add something meaningful to the discussion or don't even bother because you are wasting everyone's time.

To the others with a similar argument some of what has been proposed would actually make your wars more interesting, by adding in the ability for a defending player to end the war on their own terms in some fashion (beyond the payment of ISK which comes right back to Ransom and may or may not be successful), you give them a reason to not turtle up and make your war boring. If a war is declared on me I would be perfectly happy to sit in a station and go play one of my other games that are sitting and waiting on the shelf for me to go finish if I have no meaningful way of hurting my attackers and am just going to lose ships. There is a valid psychological tactic to this. I take away your enjoyment of declaring war on me by not presenting a target and you will eventually get bored and stop. Sometimes that will take longer than others, but frankly, I can wait. That's not fun for you when I just sit in a station and wait for you to get bored of paying to continue the Declaration. How much more interesting would it be if the defending corp had a list of options they could make when the war is decc'ed that would allow them to end the war.

They could be from taking out 10% of your corps assets in a single week, keeping their losses to under 10% of their assets in a single week (conditional on them being in space for a set period a day), mining a billion ISK in ore without losing a ship (value changing depending on their corps size). There are probably others but I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet..... The point is that if the defender manages his "win condition" then the war ends at the end of the current week and the aggressor cannot implement another war against the same corp for a month. Some of the defenders will still turtle up and that happens but that's what a sandbox is for but some of them will actually try for their win-condition and what will that do? Give you more targets and give them a reason to play the game with you, they have something to aim for.

I have already elaborated in my previous post that you could make your "victory condition" a meaningless, unattainably high value so as to keep it going indefinitely, though I concede you could just leave the option on the aggressors side as no victory condition and have it as wars are now. It's not something to stop the care-bears whining that's being proposed, it's something to encourage the care-bears to be less care-beary.