These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Opinion Poll: What is/should be the purpose of Wardecs

First post
Author
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#21 - 2015-02-01 23:24:26 UTC
I can shoot newbs in rookie systems. Until CCP stops me. Damn them for nerfing my playstyle.
Cora Namoor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-02-08 22:09:47 UTC
Well we covered what they are, but what about what they could be. WarDec is a Declaration of War, for who? Just the initiators, the defenders and CONCORD? How about shady middle men and black market information brokers. Think locator agents but for corp assets and recent actives and movements, or industrial jobs, research. You corp ceo gets a cryptic email and for a lump sum your opponents dirty little secrets are yours to own. If they are trying to make the game more new player friendly then they need to have corps "DO" more so there are more "real" reasons to war dec not just boredom. I think the Sov mechanic and War dec mechanic should be combined/reworked. Leave the new player miners alone and have real fights over real things not whose pile of Isk is larger. How about lucrative HiSec DED or exploration sites that are so buried in the ether that CONCORD can't tell there's fighting going on. Now you have HiSec fighting and ganking of targets whenever.
drummendejef maaktnietuit
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
#23 - 2015-02-09 21:16:05 UTC  |  Edited by: drummendejef maaktnietuit
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Wardecs exist to allow a corporation to force another corporation to give up 'valuable' space, so that moons or POCOs can be claimed, for economic benefit.


That doesn't sound like a bad idea.

If you make it "impossible" to wardec corps who don't have a POS around a moon or a POCO.

Now, wardecs are, imo, just to get easy kills from people who don't shoot back. Freezing whole corps/alliances for the duration of the war (they don't want to undock) it's bad for the players experience.
Getting wardecced because they see you in a freighter happens.. And moving all freighter pilots to NPC corps, well, isn't that the oposite from what we are trying to do with the Friendly Fire option comming with the new expansion?


If you only can wardec people who have a POS at a moon/POCO in highsec (wardecs aren't used in low and null anyway) there probably are more people who will join non NPC corps.

In my experience, when you got wardecced, alot of people leave the corp, some come back, some don't. They start a new corp, that gets wardecced too after a while, running from wardecs, good mechanic?


edit:
if, in case of RvB, 2 corps/alliances, want to be at war with each other, give them the chance to be at war with each other (acceptance from both sides). That will make some people happy :)
Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#24 - 2015-02-10 04:28:17 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
What is, or what should be, the purpose of Wardecs in EVE Online?


The purpose of war decs now appears to me to be mainly to give bored bitter vets easy targets to pop. In the wars I've been involved with, the characters I've fought against (more with alts than this character) have demonstrated some very skilled flying and always had the right tools at hand - I've been impressed by most I've come across. I think the intent of the war dec's design was to give those without the will to fight a taste of death (and hopefully overcome the fear of it,) and it succeeds fairly well introducing high sec players into just how destructive other players can be (as opposed to rats who generally don't put out the same kind of firepower as PvP ships can.) I think war decs were also intended to give mercenary corps a reason to exist but that hasn't really succeeded on a scale that matters much. Eve is always going to have a problem with experienced and skilled players picking on the weak, so at least in design terms war decs probably work as was intended...maybe. Most of high sec's mechanics make about as much sense to me as an episode of the teletubbies tbh.

I think the purpose of high sec war decs should be that they force players to band together like they do in other areas in Eve, and currently that doesn't appear to me to be happening. Carebears don't appear to evolve, and if I was a CCP game designer I'd be extremely worried about that and I think war decs might have been an attempt to address that. No matter how I think war decs should work I'm sure that given how Eve players exploit any and every loophole it's a pointless exercise bothering. With this year being the 'year of null' I don't think it's something that should be worked on unless there is significant proof it's damaging subs/the game. I suppose CCP will have the metrics for the amount of players who never undocked or got bored and quit due to a war dec - frankly I'd be badgering for metrics like this from CCP if I was on the CSM because folks leaving game is a huge concern of mine. If CCPs figures reflect my own experience of an active corp losing 80percent of it's members presumably to another game, then it might be time for war decs to be addressed. Conversely, if CCP find that brand of 'content creation' valuable they won't need to do anything to change it.

I've had to heavily edit this because it got really ranty (I'd remove high sec from game rather than waste time 'fixing' outdated mechanics that I think promote player stagnation) - I hope it still makes sense.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#25 - 2015-02-12 11:16:25 UTC
War decs have no place in this game imho.

I prefer ganking or being ganked over war decs.

It takes more emotional and financial commitment to gank an opponent then simple war dec them.

A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.
When corporations or alliances are at war the pilots belonging to them become legal targets for each other in all security levels of empire space.

War decs gives a warning that you are a target, but being ganked or ganking another adds a surprise effect to the game with risks and rewards Cool

It's a shame CCPgames, perhaps due to laziness, only allows driving competition of the grid (PI, POCO's, POS, Belts) through an easy war deccing system to gain Territorial Control.

If war decs are removed in favor of ganking, then another way of stopping Concord involvement has to be put in place, maybe Bribing Concord ?!

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#26 - 2015-02-12 11:19:38 UTC
added: shooting PI structures off the grid, after bribery of Concord, would be done with orbital bombardments Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#27 - 2015-02-14 21:05:54 UTC
Steve's question is a good one: What do we want wardecs to achieve?

Most of the replies in this thread have attempted to answer a different, duller and less useful question: How should wardecs work?

Asking "what" instead of "how" is actually asking what kind of game should EVE be.

But the root issue with wardecs is that they're non-consensual PvP; Party A decides to initiate hostilities with Party B whether Party B wants to or not. A moment's thought will make it obvious that there is no way that this can possibly be acceptable to the "Party B" type organisations in the game short of being able to give a "Party A wants to have a war with you, do you accept? Y/N" type response. Obviously Party A isn't going to attack unless it thinks victory is likely. Obviously Party B isn't likely to want to participate if Party A thinks it has an advantage.

Underlying that, we have an even more primitive question here: should groups be subject to the same "any time, any place" conditions of aggression that individual players are? At the moment, we have a worst-possible situation where it's trivial to initiate aggression if you know what you're doing, and equally trivial to avoid it if you know what you're doing. There is virtually no chance of a genuinely satisfying conflict outside of a pre-arranged custom-built RvB style scenario.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a satisfactory solution to perfectly reconcile the desires of people who want to shoot at people who don't want to be shot at with the desires of those they wish to shoot at. But it does occur to me that the 'sandboxiest' resolution - the one most in keeping with the spirit of EVE - is to offer a spectrum of choices. Rather than a simple binary [Join Corp = Be subject to wardecs from anyone], allow some means of gradiated choices. And gradiated opportunity costs.

One idea I had - and I want to stress that I'm not proposing this as an actual mechanic to implement, but as an exampe to illustrate the kind of concept I'm talking about here - was the "War Bond". Allow corps or alliances to post a bond with CONCORD. Anyone who wants to wardec that group has to match the bond. Whichever side surrenders [and there all kinds of subtle ways to define surrender here - membership reduced to less than 20% of the number when war was declared, no undocks for a week, formal admission, etc etc) forfeits their bond to the other party. Both parties have to put something at risk. If the Party B only posts a 1M bond, then it can be dec'd by anyone for 1M ISK. If they post a 100B bond, then only rich groups can dec them, but they stand to gain - or lose - 100B. With 100B at stake, it's worth hiring mercs, fightin on despite losses, and so on.

The point being that the 'Party B' type organisations would gain at least some agency over their situation. Rather than simply waiting for the next wardec, unable to have any influence over who declares or for what reason, then can at least choose to make a statement: either

"We care incredibly little about this corp - it's only worth 1 million ISK to ISK. Dec us and we'll all just leave"

"We care a lot about this corp - you'll have to put 100 billion ISK on the table if you want to take a swing at us"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#28 - 2015-02-15 00:03:16 UTC
Isn't that just Dec Shield, that CCP spent years getting rid of?

And doesn't that just drastically favor the defender, at the expense of smaller groups?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#29 - 2015-02-15 11:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Isn't that just Dec Shield, that CCP spent years getting rid of?

And doesn't that just drastically favor the defender, at the expense of smaller groups?



At the moment the potential target has no choices to make to alter their situation. Any change from the current "enforced total passivity" will naturally favour the defender, because naturally they'll prefer to make choices that favour them, a privilege current wholly reserved for the potential attacker. I don't see any good argument for the current situation where Party A gets to make all the decisions and Party B gets to make none.

Equally, it's bullshit that Party A can spend ISK on a wardec and be essentially legally cheated out of having any effect whatsoever.

But if we're going to have a situation where Party B can't just costlessly step aside when they're wardecced, then we must also have a situation where Party A can't just spam out a wardec for lols and also costlessly trololol off if it turns out that eg: Party B is actually willing and able to effectively shoot back. Both sides will have to have skin in the game.

Allowing Party B to post a war bond size of their choice means that they get a say in determining the initial condifitons of the conflict. Many hi-sec corps are little more than a private chat channel - or not even that, if they're 1-man tax avoidance corps.

NB: I should have made it explicit: the bond would replace the wardec fee. So if a very rich Party B (let's call them SwoonGarm) post a 100 billion ISK bond in an effort to deter Party A (let's call them The Trivet Peers) for deccing them, that's all very well, but The Trivet Peers being able to raise that bond means that they'll get a permanent wardec vs SwoonGarm unless and until the war is surrendered. And there are all kinds of ways that a sum that size can be raised in an economy as large and mature as EVE's.


EDIT: To answer your question, no it's qualitatively different from the Dec Shield effect because if your win, you get your ISK back. Unlike the Dec Shield,, which sank the ISK irretrievably.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#30 - 2015-02-15 12:32:16 UTC
I can't really see how that would help things, assuming that if I'm understanding this correctly, the dec is permanent unless one side surrenders. (and presumably has to give up their corp? )

Because people who couldn't afford a War Bond would be better off in NPC corps. People who can afford a War Bond wouldn't want to post one, because it's a big, giant prize for the much better organized PvP community, who would eventually take it.

It doesn't solve the basic problem.

NPC corps are more highly incentivized for almost everything you might want to do. You even said it yourself, player corps are glorified chat channels and tax dodges, while NPC corps offer total safety from one of the only two remaining viable ways to PvP in highsec. (I don't count duels, because if CCP isn't ashamed of that wretched mechanic, they should be)

Until NPC corps are nerfed into a sub standard way to play the game(for non new players, of course), that won't change and player corps won't be worth fighting for.

I'm not talking about slapping trial account restrictions on them, but something has to change or the current situation is just building from a broken foundation. CCP's been all about slaying sacred cows lately, so I wonder if they'll have the fortitude to take on one of the biggest in the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#31 - 2015-02-15 15:03:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I can't really see how that would help things, assuming that if I'm understanding this correctly, the dec is permanent unless one side surrenders. (and presumably has to give up their corp? )


The side that surrenders forfeits the bond.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because people who couldn't afford a War Bond would be better off in NPC corps. People who can afford a War Bond wouldn't want to post one, because it's a big, giant prize for the much better organized PvP community, who would eventually take it.

It doesn't solve the basic problem.

NPC corps are more highly incentivized for almost everything you might want to do. You even said it yourself, player corps are glorified chat channels and tax dodges, while NPC corps offer total safety from one of the only two remaining viable ways to PvP in highsec. (I don't count duels, because if CCP isn't ashamed of that wretched mechanic, they should be)

Until NPC corps are nerfed into a sub standard way to play the game(for non new players, of course), that won't change and player corps won't be worth fighting for.

I'm not talking about slapping trial account restrictions on them, but something has to change or the current situation is just building from a broken foundation. CCP's been all about slaying sacred cows lately, so I wonder if they'll have the fortitude to take on one of the biggest in the game.


Well either it's a "big giant prize" or a "dec shield". Which argument am I defending vs?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#32 - 2015-02-16 00:05:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Well either it's a "big giant prize" or a "dec shield". Which argument am I defending vs?


I wasn't arguing about dec shield, I genuinely wanted clarification as to how it was supposed to work.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2015-02-16 15:00:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Well either it's a "big giant prize" or a "dec shield". Which argument am I defending vs?


I wasn't arguing about dec shield, I genuinely wanted clarification as to how it was supposed to work.


It's supposed to work as an example of how the current system requires no commitment and zero or negative incentive to actually fight.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#34 - 2015-02-16 20:45:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Well either it's a "big giant prize" or a "dec shield". Which argument am I defending vs?


I wasn't arguing about dec shield, I genuinely wanted clarification as to how it was supposed to work.


It's supposed to work as an example of how the current system requires no commitment and zero or negative incentive to actually fight.


Okay. And I told you that would remain the status quo so long as player corporations are inferior to NPC corps. The people who don't want to fight now, still would have no reason to under your suggestion.

But if a player corp is the most optimal way to play the game, then they have a carrot to fight over. Right now just about all the carrots are still there in an NPC corp, save the dubious privilege of using the POS system.

If CCP wants player corps, and by extension player wars, to have meaning, then they need to address the sacred cow of NPC corps, it's as simple as that. So long as it's possible to have their cake and eat it too, most people will choose that option nine times out of ten.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#35 - 2015-02-19 08:12:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Well either it's a "big giant prize" or a "dec shield". Which argument am I defending vs?


I wasn't arguing about dec shield, I genuinely wanted clarification as to how it was supposed to work.


It's supposed to work as an example of how the current system requires no commitment and zero or negative incentive to actually fight.


Okay. And I told you that would remain the status quo so long as player corporations are inferior to NPC corps. The people who don't want to fight now, still would have no reason to under your suggestion.

But if a player corp is the most optimal way to play the game, then they have a carrot to fight over. Right now just about all the carrots are still there in an NPC corp, save the dubious privilege of using the POS system.

If CCP wants player corps, and by extension player wars, to have meaning, then they need to address the sacred cow of NPC corps, it's as simple as that. So long as it's possible to have their cake and eat it too, most people will choose that option nine times out of ten.


Let's just get rid of highsec and force everyone to claw their way up through an onslaught of bored bittervets.

That is the effective result of nerfing NPC corp incomes. Force the carebears and newbs out to play clay pigeons whilst those who generate their income in null or lowsec or via station trading can continue to use NPC corps to shield their logistics and scouts from aggression.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#36 - 2015-02-19 10:00:43 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Let's just get rid of highsec and force everyone to claw their way up through an onslaught of bored bittervets.

That is the effective result of nerfing NPC corp incomes.


No, the result would be more people in player corps. Now, if you're trying to claim that is a bad thing, be my guest.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#37 - 2015-02-19 18:38:49 UTC
This will result in people with no interest in player corps being forced into them with an even greater proliferation of mismanaged highsec newbie corps. Essentially, an influx of easy targets for the highsec pvp crowd. Wardec spam will turn hubs into FW systems while bittervet scout, logi, and booster alts not affected by tax rates will retain CONCORD protection. And you will kill the game by trying to make people who don't treat this like a second job play your way if they want to undock.

In short, more player corps is not an inherently good thing. If the majority of those are founded and populated by people whose only interest is the tax benefit and who are woefully unprepared to exist in a combat environment, then I would say it is a negative.
We've got enough of those already. My god, where do you think James gets his blog content?

Unless your idea of fun is hunting mining barges in a proteus. Is that your idea of fun kaarous?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#38 - 2015-02-19 18:55:47 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
This will result in people with no interest in player corps being forced into them with an even greater proliferation of mismanaged highsec newbie corps.


People who don't want to be in player corps won't join them, they'll quit the game. That could be good or bad for the game, depending on just how many people we're talking about.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Essentially, an influx of easy targets for the highsec pvp crowd.


You're only an easy target if you make yourself one.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#39 - 2015-02-20 00:56:01 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

In short, more player corps is not an inherently good thing.


And there it is, ladies and gentlemen.

The attitude that is holding EVE hostage.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lienzo
Amanuensis
#40 - 2015-02-25 04:37:45 UTC
I think war decs should be incremental, and the cost should reflect the number of systems, constellations, regions, or factional space under contest, as well as the interval of time desired. Forcing other groups of player to adapt is generally far more interesting than obliging them to log on to their alts.

Mutual wars should have selectable scope as well as be nearly free. Number of pilots involved in any wars, mutual or otherwise, should be a deprecated pricing mechanic.

I think there should also be some penalties for losing wars, like losing the ability to claim certain sov-esque benefits for existing or replaced towers or POCOs in surrendered space for an interval of time. We need some kind of mechanic that incentivizes sustained corporate "presence" in any part of k-space.

Perhaps having a POS and corporate offices in any part of space could mitigate an added npc station tax in that constellation. Perhaps personal standing with NPCs and corporate standing with NPCs could have distinct spheres of effect, eliminating overlap. Rather than be based on CEO standing updates at the founding, it could be based on something continuous like recent corporate commercial and industrial activity, or the aforementioned presence effect. If these factors can be jeopardized by localized conflict between player groups, then you start to have interesting content emerge.

It might not be as newsworthy as conflicts between the mega-bloc, but it is interesting for the pilots involved, and that is what really matters in a universe that has real scale.
Previous page12