These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Make War Declarations More Dynamic - Counter Bribery and Attrition War

First post
Author
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-05-10 13:07:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:

These arguments cut both ways. You can already PvP in lowsec/nullsec/wormholes. Wardecs are unfriendly to new players.


And do wardecs need to be more, or less accessible to new players? Conflict in general needs to be more accessible in highsec as a general rule.

I agree. That is why I like the idea of more flashy yellow pilots in highsec.


If you want to encourage and proliferate conflict, handicapping the aggressor is not how you do it. That's typically the kind of thing you ask for if you want conflict actively discouraged.


Agreed, handicapping either side will simply put that side off engaging.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-05-10 13:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it. People should not be surprised when those corps simply choose not to fight. The second issue is that the wardec corp is usually bringing much more firepower than the small newer corps can counter, therefore they dock up or roll corp to avoid being a staked out goat.

Wardecs need a complete overhaul. They are by nature a limited engagement between two entities. This is allowed by CONCORD as a necessity to keep capsuleers happy and not causing too much trouble. As such there needs to be some mechanism whereby CONCORD will only ignore relatively like sized or capable corps to wardec each other. Some kind of combat and industry indexes along with corp size determining wardec cost so that CONCORDignore it. A huge corp attacking a tiny one would be very hard to justify ignoring. Likewise for a small bunch of combat brutes attacking a small group of miners. However a small group of combat brutes taking on 100 indy players? The public would probably pay to watch in New Eden!

My point is that the defenders must feel they have a chance to fight back or they simply won't. This cannot be achieved by forcing them into it either, it has to be a valid choice.

Ed: I don't think that wardecs actually can be fixed right now. I think that they should be intrinsically linked to the new structures and must be redeveloped alongside these. Being able to put up a station defined as your home base capital station might help. Make it unachorable if defined as such but likewise give boosts to system activities for the corp. You want those benefits? Better be prepared to defend the station then...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#23 - 2015-05-10 14:05:03 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it.


That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps.

"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.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#24 - 2015-05-10 14:17:14 UTC
Terrible idea in the OP and it has Malcanis Law through it's heart.
Plus why would people do this, when the option to simply drop a corp and form another still exists? So those with the knowledge to avoid decs on the cheap still do and the new guys pay over the odds.

At least these posts highlight the intent of certain CSM members and their thought processes.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-05-10 17:21:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The main problem with wardecs is that they are currently used to try to force those who do not want PvP to engage in it.


That's not a problem, that is their purpose, non consensual PvP. If people don't want to engage in PvP via wars, they belong in NPC corps.


It is a problem when you try to force people into it. Players need to engage in it not be forced. This isn't me being pedantic, if players do not want to do something they will find a way to avoid it even if that means unsub and play something else. I would rather make being in a player corp give better benefits and therefore better incentive to fight. Tie the incentives to the corp structures to make that unavoidable and those willing to fight will start to do so. They need an incentive to do so though.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#26 - 2015-05-10 17:28:17 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

It is a problem when you try to force people into it.


No, it's not. That's what non consensual PvP means, it means "ready or not, here I come!".

The game is built on the principle of non consensual PvP.

"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.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#27 - 2015-05-10 17:59:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Chance Ravinne wrote:
GENERAL, VAGUE, TOP-LEVEL MECHANICS

  1. Starting a war works exactly how it works now, except the offensive side chooses how much to bribe CONCORD for (starting at the current price as a minimum)
  2. The defending corp can pay 2x the current offensive cost incurred (over however long the war has run) to cancel the war
  3. A war cooldown timer is started. During that cooldown, the offending corp can re-declare war, at double the rate of the previous war declaration. The timer gets longer the higher the multiplier is.
  4. This could go back and forth until one side chooses not to pay, offers surrender, or if the offensive corp doesn't renew the war during its cooldown.

This is a terrible idea. Why should rich and established players be made immune to the wardecs that now the poorer and newer corporations will be now forced to suffer? ISK tanking proposal like these mean that wardeccers will just be directed to go after newer and smaller (that is poorer) corps, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging and what your proposal probably is trying to encourage.

Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs. If anything, wardec fees should be lowered, at least for small, non-mercenary corps, so they can actually use the mechanic to settle scores with other small corps and get used to the idea of PvP in a controlled environment as wardecs were initially intended.

But really, unless the drop-reform hole is plugged in some way (as Mag's said above), the point is moot as no (smallish) corp will pay as they can dodge the war for just the million ISK corporation fee rather than 100M ISK to counter-bribe CONCORD.

I think your heart is in the right place (at least I hope it is), but this is just a terrible suggestion which will do nothing to make wardecs more engaging, meaningful or fun. It would just allow players to isolate themselves further from the sandbox , the exact opposite of the direction CCP claims to want to take the game.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#28 - 2015-05-10 18:11:09 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Proposals like this which punish the aggressors with increased costs has led to mercenaries forming ever-larger wardeccing alliances to save on fees (Forsaken - Marmites anyone?), further exacerbating the discrepancy between the military strength of corps in wardecs.


Bingo. Every time the carebears cry enough to get CCP to tighten the handcuffs on player freedom because they can't be asked to play the game, it makes the game worse for everyone.

The various restrictions on player freedom in highsec need to be lessened or outright removed.

"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.

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#29 - 2015-05-10 18:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
The little corps would still get screwed by not having the bank roll to keep making counter bribes. Meaning they'd be pissing money away to no avail, which is actually worse than the current system. Right now they can stay docked and lose nothing. But the newer corps may actually try to pay to stop the dec and find themselves worse off. Not to mention I'd assume once the timer has worn off and the defender won the bid war it would create a timer in which that aggressing corp would be unable to start a new dec against them fro a short time. Which means hello alt corps time to continue the harassment.


I'd suggest something similar to what you put forth that would actually be really good and much more fair to the smaller entity.

War decs paid out based number of individuals within corp/alliance being ignored or defended by concord.
-Decking as a small corp would be relatively inexpensive as your paying concord off to ignore a small number of people and vice versa.
-Bribing concord to protect your small corp would be relatively cheaper because they are having to give extra care to fewer people, again vice versa.

Bribe concord to protect you from wars for normal war dec duration.
-Entity A is willing to pay x amount per player within their corp/alliance to stall war decs from any other entity for say... 2 weeks.
-Entity B,C,D must pay a combined x per player to remove this protection, then the new standard fee z for creating the war dec.
-Entity A must now pay z to nullify the wardec and the cycle continues.


The newer corps would still would get screwed due to bank roll in the long run. But to keep war deccing a small corp or alliance would cost the larger one many times more in the bid/counter bid process due to it being based on member count of the bidding corp. However, I like the idea of a buy-out feature for the smaller new player corps. As long as the initial compounding penalties hit the aggressor first, then the "defender" then it seems balanced.


EDIT: Throw in there that recruitment during wartime would be unavailable for both corps (at least decing corp) to prevent gaming the system with low cost wars, then massive recruitment.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#30 - 2015-05-11 01:54:15 UTC
I agree that war decs are not in an optimal place right now, but they are a necessary evil.* Your proposal does little to mitigate the bad aspects of the current system while adding a whole host of new concerns and abuses.

* - So long as Concord exists, you have to have some kind of war dec system. I'd be inclined to remove Concord and replace it with a far harsher security loss policy, with losing the ability to dock, cloak, anchor structures, enter POS shields, enter High Sec through gates, accept ISK transfers, place buy/sell orders, contracts, etc. coming relatively quickly as the consequences of aggression. That, and going flashy red at a relatively low number (-1.0), so that players provide violent consequences, not NPC's. We have that safety to protect new players from most mistakes that might trigger consequences. Add to that a restriction on NPC corp players initiating HS aggression. Then make it so that setting the trigger red makes you a target for anyone in HS space.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#31 - 2015-05-11 02:54:20 UTC
Guys who here thinks wars instead of being nerfed could use an incentive?

I know its a crazy idea but read me out first. I proposed some weeks ago a change to high-sec/low-sec and some other tweaks to corps and wars that would follow as a result. Instead of taking 1 more reason away for a war lets add a reason for a war. The idea was basically add a structure that represented control over a constellation giving bonuses to ISK/Material generating activities while slightly nerfing NPC corps to compensate for the increased amount of ISK/LP coming into the game. Basically drive one PvE focused corp to want to fight for control of a constellation or a better constellation then the one they currently have. There were some other changes too to balance this all out. If your interested in discussing changes to wars and high-sec this has been a passion of mine for well over a year now and I really think with the null-sec changes and the entosis link this finally represents a way to pull it off.

Chance I'm gonna mail you a link so as to not hijack your thread and if you have some free time to discuss it I would really like to talk to someone on the CSM about this

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Raphendyr Nardieu
Avanto
Hole Control
#32 - 2015-05-11 11:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Raphendyr Nardieu
Nice that here is talk about this issue. I today commented about this in reddit

Any case, Here are my ideas around this topic (some are covered already in the posts):


  • add fines to the game. You get fines from small crimes like scanning another ship. When you have too much fines, you can't dock to 1.0 stations and so on like security status (but with stations). (Makes it bit harder to use neutral alt to scan your fit).

  • If you help a person in war, you will become part of the war for like 15 minutes (timer). Unless this had suspect flag already? Idea is that helpers have to be killable too. (None taking part of the war can be safe)

  • Stations deny docking and start shooting of people who fire in front of them (a bit like gate guns in low). It's bad for the business of the station if there is bullets or ship parts flying around in front of it. (This should deny market hub gangers from hiding into the station or undocking neutral nestors).

  • Other idea would be that, the station would launch warp bubble when there is shooting around the station. Station would also shoot attackers inside the bubble. This would allow bumbing, but would require you to track, where your target is headed to come out of the bubble. This is probably less good idea than above, but I wanted to throw it here for people to think about it too.

  • Some end criteria for the war or something the war is about. E.g. planets, starbases and a like. Maybe area control should be possible some how. Also I understand judt plain harasment (hiring a merc to shoot competitors miners is good!). It would be nice that if someone starts war against you, you could somehow end it with own activity. Maybe those sovereignty mechanics could be used here at least for the virtual "I own this space". Capturing the capture points to end the war, could make wars more active.

  • Some wars could also be only in a system or region. Like "I wan't to fight for your pocos in system X". This might be bad as then the risk of attacking the others pocos would be lowered as you assets would be in danger. This could work for some purposes, like when there is those capture points to end the war. Or if you want to deny those belt miners.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#33 - 2015-05-11 11:55:40 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I agree that war decs are not in an optimal place right now, but they are a necessary evil.* Your proposal does little to mitigate the bad aspects of the current system while adding a whole host of new concerns and abuses.

* - So long as Concord exists, you have to have some kind of war dec system. I'd be inclined to remove Concord and replace it with a far harsher security loss policy...


To flesh out my post. I think that Concord destroying ships that commit unsanctioned violent acts in High Security space is a really poor mechanic. I also think war decs are a bad mechanic. I would prefer to see consequences flow to the actual human controlling the ship as much as possible. Ship loss, via deus ex machina, is a poor mechanic. It does not allow a defender to launch a preemptive strike. Nor does it actually deter a significant amount of the space violence in High Security space - it just dictates which hulls are most useful for space violence.

My premises:
1. Space violence is good.
2. No space should be totally safe.
3. Safety should come from player enforcement mechanisms as much as possible, not from NPC's or deus ex machina.
4. Space violence should have more consequences in High Sec than in lower security space.
5. Space violence should have consequences that actually affect the player.

With that said... here goes:

Start with the safety setting.

1. Green = safety is on in High Sec and Low Sec. With the safety set to green, you cannot intentionally attack any other player in High Sec or Low Sec space.* Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec or Low Sec space.

If you are in High Sec space, while in Green mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player.

2. Yellow = With the safety set to yellow, you cannot initiate combat with any other player in High Sec - you can still respond in self-defense.* You are still free to initiate combat in Low Sec. Any player who attacks you will incur a security status penalty in High Sec space, but not in Low Sec.

If you are in High Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Red or Green , you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

If you are in Low Sec space, while in Yellow mode, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on any other player unless they are also set to Yellow. If your target changes their status from Yellow to Green or Red , you automatically lose lock without incurring any aggression. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

3. Red = safety is off. With the safety set to red, you can shoot any other player at any time, in any space. There will be no security status penalty if anyone shoots at you while you are in Red mode.

In High Sec or Low Sec space, you cannot initiate remote repair/effects on a person who is set to Red, unless you are also set to Red. If your remote repair target changes their status from Red to Green or Yellow, you automatically lose lock without incurring any change in aggression status. You also get a helpful status change notification pop-up (can be disabled).

Once you push the red button, you cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, eject from your ship in High Sec, switch to another ship in High Sec, or safely log off in High Sec. The button has a twenty minute cool down period. The cool down period ends automatically if your ship is destroyed. You can still use High Sec gates, jump drive out of High Sec, or use a wormhole.

* - To protect the unwary new player: Without turning off the safety, you cannot accidentally attack another player in High Sec space, except with an Area of Effect weapon. Appropriate warning messages pop-up when you equip an Area of Effect weapon (warning can be turned off).

If you want to have a duel with someone, you can still do that, without having to set the safety to red. You just have to go through the normal dueling procedures.

As for loss of security status effects, unsanctioned attacks would be defined as follows:
High Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status substantially
Low Sec: Red on Green or Yellow lowers security status minimally; Yellow on Green lowers security status minimally
Null Sec: anything goes

As your security status goes lower, you should face more severe effects. Not wedded to these numbers, but something like this:

-2 and below: cannot place buy/sell orders in High Sec stations, make or accept contracts in High Sec, trade in High Sec stations. -5% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-4 and below: cannot cloak in High Sec, dock in High Sec, enter a High Sec POS force field, or safely log off in High Sec. -10% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-6 and below: cannot board a ship in High Sec space (have to board in Low or Null). Safety is always Red. -15% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-8 and below: cannot send ISK to another player, receive ISK from another player. -20% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.
-10: cannot use High Sec gates (can still enter or leave through a wormhole). -25% HP, agility, sensor strength, and scan resolution while in High Sec.

Security status can only be raised by turning in pirate faction (minimal gain) and those special commander tags (substantial gain). Get rid of all war declarations. Any player can fight any player, but there are consequences.

I have tried to anticipate as many ways to abuse this as I can, but I am only one person. If you spot an exploit, I'd love to flesh out the idea more. Thoughts?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#34 - 2015-05-11 12:36:05 UTC
@FT Diomedes

every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#35 - 2015-05-11 12:52:00 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
@FT Diomedes

every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live


Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos.

"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.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#36 - 2015-05-11 12:56:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
@FT Diomedes

every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live


Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos.

He said no pos's allowed ot be entered
It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#37 - 2015-05-11 12:57:30 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
@FT Diomedes

every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live


Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos.

He said no pos's allowed ot be entered
It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left


Oh, so it's just another banal iteration of "kick pirates out of highsec"? Tch, I had hoped for better than that tired old trope.

"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.

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#38 - 2015-05-11 13:01:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
@FT Diomedes

every freighter, PvE ship, and incursion ship in highsec would die within 24 hours of this going live


Beyond that, it would problematically make smaller groups unviable, and cause conglomeration on a huge scale, thanks to the "can't dock" restrictions forcing people to use Poses. They'd converge into larger groups merely to offset the cost and maintenance of a large Pos.

He said no pos's allowed ot be entered
It would however mean we'd all travel around in 100man fleets until nothing was left


Oh, so it's just another banal iteration of "kick pirates out of highsec"? Tch, I had hoped for better than that tired old trope.

Well It would have the effect of making us all reship in the nearest lowsec system. on the other hand nobody would ever be able to PVE in highsec ever again. if this were C&P this is where I would point the finger at the poster and call him Nitshe. hmm what does one call an idea in F&I that is poorly thought out and would destroy the game completely for everybody?

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#39 - 2015-05-11 15:11:54 UTC
So small poor corps continue to get decced, and rich ones can just buy safety?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#40 - 2015-05-11 15:49:50 UTC
Not every idea is a diamond, but I seem to recall that Eve did exist without Concord at one point, right?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Previous page123Next page