These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Current Flaws of the Wardec Mechanic and Highsec Space

First post
Author
Myxx
The Scope
#1 - 2011-10-24 20:25:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
I will offer no explaination as to who I am, or what qualifications I have to make these claims, my argument should be solid enough to stand on its own two feet regardless of who is saying it. I believe that all points are solidly covered below from both sides of the coin.

Currently wars are evadable and pointless due to the fact you can legitimately avoid them through various mechanics such as alliance hopping, corporation hopping and sheilding yourself from wardecs by increasing the costs. This stems from the fact that highsec, has for a long time, become a place where people go and expect to be nigh-immune from harm from anyone. CONCORD should not be impossible to tank and/or evade without being banned. If you remember, it used to not be like that, until the zombies invaded Yulai and successfully tanked CONCORD, effectively blockading the main trade hub at the time.

The other problems are some of the absolutely massive undock rings of some stations due to their design. The Caldari stations can have a docking ring that extends out to 45+km from the undock point. This means that anyone within that absolutely massive bubble can dock at any time provided that they aren't agressing another person and haven't for one minute. This problem also exists with some Gallente stations such as the school stations such as the type in the Duripant system. This, coupled with CONCORD's immunity to being harmed in any way whatsoever makes it rediciously easy to evade legitimate wardecs from people that are angry with the target.

If the war system is to be overhauled, it needs to be done in concert with a larger highsec balance pass for the above reasons. Station games, as they are called, take any fun in fighting out of the picture. It should be kept in mind that a large number of wars in highsec occur BECAUSE people enjoy talking smack, and playing the market to make passive income while someone else camps the station outside, hoping that they get bored and just stfu and go away. This effectively makes wars in highsec pointless because actions lack consequence for people that overstep their boundries.

Any new war mechanic needs to be looked at from this perspective in that it should be a viable gameplay choice in highsec, or anywhere else and that current loopholes should be plugged/given counters for both sides. Goals should be established for both sides so that one or the other may truly claim victory and bring an end to the conflict once a set number of goals are achieved. Goals can/should always be dynamic so as to allow the aggressor to cause the victim harm be it in space or in their wallet. This can come in the form of blockades to somebodie's ecnomic empire, station/gate camps, ship losses, manufacturing processes taking damage, or whatever suits either side. The victim should be capable, in theory, of fighting back in multiple ways, including hiring mercenaries to remove blockades, escort transport ships to a market, or what-have-you.

Ideally, in the minds of many, CONCORD would not exist. If that were to happen, it would end HILARIOUSLY with the perma-blockading of any and all trade hubs and murdering of all miners anywhere. This is effectively a non-option at this point (even if i may agree with the idea that CONCORD is a **** mechanic to begin with) and fully removing CONCORD would hurt the game more than it would help it. At the same time, Highsec space, as I said above, is too secure. A balance can be struck to make it signifigantly less safe without making it effectively nullsec. Such a balance would likely improve the game, I would argue however that it would have to be a careful one.

Edit: I should add that current evasion mechanics such as simply creating new corporations exist at this time because of the relative ease with wich corporations are created and disbanded, they don't really matter. Likewise, some alliances exist for the explicit purpose of helping corporations evade wars. These can be solved by having wars follow corps through alliances and reformations. Decsheilds as they are called exist because of similar reasons.
Shad0wsFury
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-10-24 20:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Shad0wsFury
And people think a few jaded bittervets unsubbing and shooting the JIta monument made a splash, just imagine the EPIC TEARS this would generate from the "EVE is too dangerous" crowd.

I totally agree, however, that there SHOULD be better game mechanics to handle wars. It's not so much I agree with what the OP said, which I sorta do, it's more about the ISK.

I would guess that most of the EVE veterans out there make isk through some sort of alt, or alt corp/alliance. That makes it difficult to attack their infrastructure directly, unless you can gain some inside information. Say, for example, that I did or said something to REALLY make someone mad. Mad enough to wardec me and (lol) Pandemic Legion. Not only would I find this marvelously hilarious, it's also pretty useless and probably more than borderline self destructive. If you don't know why, maybe you should move on to another poast. But hey, even if I wasn't in PL, there is very little you can accomplish with an empire war if your opponents refuse to undock or fight. Either way, what you accomplish with said war is pretty much nothing, except wasting your isk on a wardec in the first place.

If someone REALLY wanted to hurt me, they would have to figure out how to discover who my alts are, what corp(s) they're in, which ones are there to make lots and lots of isk, and where those assets are so that they can attack them. They would then have to wardec my ALT CORP and go after my alt's assets, and even then, it's very likely I could just dodge the attack anyway.

That's a long, convoluted process just to achieve the objective of "getting back" at me for something I did.

Long story short, nothing short of adding some sort of mechanic where people can't hid behind their alts is going to change much. This would also be a pretty unpopular move, because to make sure nobody could hide behind their alts, some sort of IP address matching would probably need to take place, and WELP there go all the spies in EVE which drive most of the actual PvP now. Not to mention CCP would probably have to address shared accounts. Oh wait, nobody shares accounts, nevermind, it never happens anyway :rolleyes:. Prolly not very realistic to hope for this change.

Also, since someone is gonna bring it up, if we're talking about people who don't have alts set up to make isk for them, there's a good chance they're empire pubbies and who really cares about them anyway l0l
Myxx
The Scope
#3 - 2011-10-24 20:51:45 UTC
What Shad0wsFury just said is pretty much an extension of my original post, but it should be kept in mind as food for thought. Well put, I didn't really care to go into that that deep, but there you go.
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-10-24 20:53:57 UTC
The biggest misconception is that Concord is protection. This entirely untrue. Concord is a consequence.

As this is a sandbox I fully believe the players should be provided with less rules and more tools.
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-10-24 20:56:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Fina
Agree with the general sentiment of it being too hard to hurt people, not only in high sec but any NPC space. IMO more assets should be placed in space and being subject for attacks. Like your personal ship-hangar should not be totally safe from attacks imo. The more privelages and abilities one have in Eve the more voulnerable you should be. But this should go the other way too, in order to wage war you should be required to hold some kind of asset that can be attacked by the decced party.

This should be coupled with a heavy increase to tax for players in NPC corporations and a restriction to what they can do in the game, for example disable Battleships, T2 and T3 ships.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#6 - 2011-10-24 21:25:39 UTC
I don't have a problem with there being a non pvp portion of a predominately PVP game.

It just means more people playing the game who otherwise wouldn't.

I'd like there to be more "carrots" to lure people into pvp.... (decreasing bounty payouts to lvl 4s in high sec - asteroids less dense and more easily depleted in high sec.. more low sec and npc 0.0 systems if necessary...)

... and especially with shooting things ....


but if other players want to play a game where they COMPETE or itnereact with other players in things like the industry and the markets, they are being active parts of our virtual universe and add depth and interest to the game. Having fewer people doesnt' help anything

Don't worry about people who want to play the game differently .. they're not really in your way... mind the fleck in your own eye. Can't you find anything to hunt in low-sec, or NPC nul sec?.... don't want to be blobbed or lose but want to be able to pick on players that don't want to figth yourself?

To each there own.. very little black or white in the world without a context to judge it in.

.

Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#7 - 2011-10-24 21:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jennifer Starling
Myxx wrote:
Ganking doesnt count as PVP, IMO - its just ganking.

That's not an argument. It IS PvP, just a one-time occasion.

Myxx wrote:
Currently wars are evadable and pointless due to the fact you can legitimately avoid them through various mechanics such as alliance hopping, corporation hopping and sheilding yourself from wardecs by increasing the costs.

Well the only ones that can easily do that are corp without a POS, so newb corps or pure mission runners.
Any big self-respecting corporation has one or more POSses - and so is vulnerable to wardecs. So your argument doens't really hold.

In the end, it just comes down to that you can still kill and harass people in highsec as much as you like, you´re just not willing to pay the price.
Shad0wsFury wrote:
Long story short, nothing short of adding some sort of mechanic where people can't hid behind their alts is going to change much. This would also be a pretty unpopular move, because to make sure nobody could hide behind their alts, some sort of IP address matching would probably need to take place, and WELP there go all the spies in EVE which drive most of the actual PvP now. Not to mention CCP would probably have to address shared accounts.

As you said: not going to happen.

CCP advertizes with "big infiltrator spy games" as a great asset and has been promoting "power of two" for a while as well.
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-10-24 21:36:33 UTC
Shad0wsFury wrote:


Also, since someone is gonna bring it up, if we're talking about people who don't have alts set up to make isk for them, there's a good chance they're empire pubbies and who really cares about them anyway l0l


Just think, my fellow pubbies, you could live in nullsec and work for this guy, or someone just as cool. Blink
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#9 - 2011-10-24 21:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Shad0wsFury wrote:
lots of stuff...


...all of it true.

/signed in full

Pirate

Also: Jump drives = crazy teleportation (lame mechanic) around entirety of eve. Still needs a massive nerf.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Myxx
The Scope
#10 - 2011-10-24 22:04:25 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Myxx wrote:
Ganking doesnt count as PVP, IMO - its just ganking.

That's not an argument. It IS PvP, just a one-time occasion.

Myxx wrote:
Currently wars are evadable and pointless due to the fact you can legitimately avoid them through various mechanics such as alliance hopping, corporation hopping and sheilding yourself from wardecs by increasing the costs.

Well the only ones that can easily do that are corp without a POS, so newb corps or pure mission runners.
Any big self-respecting corporation has one or more POSses - and so is vulnerable to wardecs. So your argument doens't really hold.

In the end, it just comes down to that you can still kill and harass people in highsec as much as you like, you´re just not willing to pay the price.
Shad0wsFury wrote:
Long story short, nothing short of adding some sort of mechanic where people can't hid behind their alts is going to change much. This would also be a pretty unpopular move, because to make sure nobody could hide behind their alts, some sort of IP address matching would probably need to take place, and WELP there go all the spies in EVE which drive most of the actual PvP now. Not to mention CCP would probably have to address shared accounts.

As you said: not going to happen.

CCP advertizes with "big infiltrator spy games" as a great asset and has been promoting "power of two" for a while as well.

Did you read my entire post?
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#11 - 2011-10-24 22:06:19 UTC
Myxx wrote:
Did you read my entire post?

yup
Myxx
The Scope
#12 - 2011-10-24 22:08:56 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Myxx wrote:
Did you read my entire post?

yup

Can you fully comprehend that many wars are utterly pointless as a result of the reasoning I've given?
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#13 - 2011-10-24 22:14:48 UTC
Myxx wrote:
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Myxx wrote:
Did you read my entire post?

yup

Can you fully comprehend that many wars are utterly pointless as a result of the reasoning I've given?

I can. Do they always have to be succesful - and from whose perspective?

I'm not saying all your points are invalid (agreed, station games are utter silly) and I agree wardecs need a major overhaul. But I don't think I'd agree with all your assumptions and proposals.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#14 - 2011-10-24 22:19:58 UTC
To reiterate past posts: There is a big reason many people want nothing to do with PvP combat: They do not get The Rush.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like.

You cannot PvP with someone, or war dec them, if they do not play the game. Forcing people into PvP situations over and over will do nothing but force many of them out of the game.

To summarize: Any improvement to the war dec system must allow for people who get no pleasure from PvP combat, or subscriptions will suffer.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Myxx
The Scope
#15 - 2011-10-24 22:38:01 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
To reiterate past posts: There is a big reason many people want nothing to do with PvP combat: They do not get The Rush.

The Rush is a good felling one gets with and after a burst of adrenaline associated with an exciting experience, like PvP combat. Not everyone gets The Rush. Some get no pleasure from adrenaline, and some actually feel bad or sick from it. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the difference between these people is genetic. You are born to get The Rush, or you are not. The result is some players will not enjoy PvP and actively seek to avoid it, and no amount of game tweaking will change that, because game tweaking will not change their genes. After all this is a game, people will tend to avoid game activities that make them sick. Instead they do cooperative activities, industry, missions and the like.

You cannot PvP with someone, or war dec them, if they do not play the game. Forcing people into PvP situations over and over will do nothing but force many of them out of the game.

To summarize: Any improvement to the war dec system must allow for people who get no pleasure from PvP combat, or subscriptions will suffer.



The problem with this is that any wardec system that allows for doging wars is no better than the current one. Dodging wars as it stands is done primarily because of the total dickwad equation and that people don't like to be held accountable for their **** attitudes.
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2011-10-25 07:08:34 UTC
Moved from "EVE General Discussion".

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-25 12:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Aqriue
There is a simplier way to avoid highsec problems.

You want to know more?

{Yes} {No}

Be prepared, this sage advice will blow your mind away.

GTFO of highsec.

/me watches in the amazement of the Whoa!, Dude!, Sweet! like from Keanu Reeves Bill/Ted Moments and Ashton Kutcher / Seann William Scott Dude, where's my car.

Questions is, why are you surrounded in the security of highsec trying to wage a one sided war of aggression? Why do you want a one sided victory against a mission fitted ship, masturbetion is just as one sided and less hassle then trying to get girl into your bed. Could it be...that you like how secure it is and a sense of victory while avoiding all the risk. Ah, that further blows your mind away. Seems you like convience and less hassle as the guy you set out to destroy, when in fact you can just walk away from it. You don't have to fight battles of those NPC police retaliating, neutrol repping, station docking games that you so despise.

What no one ever stops to think about is, that its just that damn easy to destroy things in EVE unlike other MMO that can really ruins someone's day for a video game and there isn't enough justifiable reward to bother with that "grindy feel" to replace assets while under constant threat unless destroying unless NPC frigs were payed out 5 million in bounties in .8 space scalable up to 50m in .4 space (and the BS rewards, would pay for 3 plex for each one destroyed) or that they should just be replacable with a click of a button like in a FPS at no real cost. That CONCORD is a nice security blanket, cause someone (highsec dwellering carebears) knows someone else (the aggressive pilot) doesn't like to arbitrarily loose once they set out on their course of action. Who doesn't like it when you think you win that CONCORD comes out of no where and shoves it powdery confectionary covered fingers up their ass? It has to be really worthwile to pop ships that isn't in your favor to win (like lowsec), pretty sure you couldn't even motivate Goons unless someone was paying them to pop Mack cherries for nearly a month while getting their sec status cherry popped by CONCORD unless it was worthwile to even Goons. Human nature, what can they get out of it...

So, you have three options.
1. Walk away and go elsewhere for you fun
2. Gank them, to hell with CONCORD and I didn't need sec status anyway cause my life sucks, wife/GF/Dog left me, and my co-workers should be shot.
3. Uninstall and go back to WoW.

Or the alternative, get CCP to remove the feeling of significant loss. BUT WAIT WHAT! you say and spout its a game about consequences while trying to lick tears off my face (whoa! I don't fly that way). Its a video game FFS, no one likes being reset back that much for something they paid for. Get rid of the feeling of significant loss and pretty sure more people would venture into lowsec.

Cpt Fina wrote:
Agree with the general sentiment of it being too hard to hurt people, not only in high sec but any NPC space. IMO more assets should be placed in space and being subject for attacks. Like your personal ship-hangar should not be totally safe from attacks imo. The more privelages and abilities one have in Eve the more voulnerable you should be. But this should go the other way too, in order to wage war you should be required to hold some kind of asset that can be attacked by the decced party.

This should be coupled with a heavy increase to tax for players in NPC corporations and a restriction to what they can do in the game, for example disable Battleships, T2 and T3 ships.

Sure, thats acceptable. So long as you have to ask me before you can fight me. You send me a pretty declaration fo war on fancy stationary and I just send back a hearty "No thank you." causing you to get angry. I would be willing to loose my BS priviledges, so long as you are paying for my subscription so I can have my fun and highsec is 100% safe carebear free land. You win, I win, we both end up being loosers cause neither of us gets what we want. Thats how I roll, no one gets the advantage or I will take my money elsewhere but CCP.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#18 - 2011-10-25 12:46:36 UTC
Myxx wrote:
The short version of this: High Security Space is too secure.


It's amazing how an opening statement can kill any desire to read the rest. Sigh... high security is too secure. Yeah, that's not by, like, design or anything, you know?

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Franky Sugaz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#19 - 2011-10-25 13:18:11 UTC
The problem isn't the High Sec it's the amount of resources that sov Alliances can farm and don't use except for supercaps massprod. Nerf moon extraction and the other way they have to make easy-isk with no risk, forcing them to do constant wars against each other for territories and resources. If they do this not only there is more pvp around but also they effectively nerf supercaps number.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#20 - 2011-10-25 13:30:09 UTC
highsec is for carebears, not pvpers, so move on.

Wardecs are meant just as crutch for those who dont want to leave high sec but still pewing others.
123Next pageLast page