These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed change to Wardecs..
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#261 - 2015-09-06 14:07:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I personally favor the generation of killrights, rather than outright flagging people who leave, or restricting corp movement. My alternative to an actual punitive mechanic is below.

That being, dropping from a player corp should trigger a cooldown against corp creation for anyone regardless of their previous role(also easier to code into the game, I would imagine). Further, it should not be so easy, in terms of isk or skillpoints, to create a player corp(add prereqs, and cost should be fifty million). If a corp is dissolved in the middle of a wardec, the corp's name and ticker are now given to the attacker as a sort of trophy, and cannot be used again unless the trophy holding corp themselves dissolves. A "dojo challenge", so to speak, in which beating them entitles you to take their sign.


I take no issue with that... Would be kind of interesting to take names as trophies.

Though, I would also like to get us back on topic of the thread.

I'm going to repost my last suggestion, in hopes that it gets read.. IT INVOLVES NO STRUCTURES.

Joe Risalo wrote:


  • Aggressor pays for war dec.

  • Price of war dec is fixed and is NOT determined about amount of members of attacker or defender. This makes deccing small corps less viable thus more meaningful, and makes deccing large corps/alliances more viable and the sheer number of defenders is enough to establish meaning.

  • Cost of war dec is paid on a daily basis, as opposed to weekly, with a minimum days requirement.

  • In order for the deccer to reduce the cost of retaining the war, they must cause isk loss to the defender.
    • This is determined on an attacker vs defender member count.
    Example (not representative of actual values).
    Attacker members / Defender members = Isk loss requirement
    1 / 1 = must cause more than double the attrition of defender
    2 / 1 = Must cause more than Triple the attrition of defender
    1 / 2 = Must cause more than equal the attrition of defender

  • Defender can increase the cost for the attacker to retain the war by causing attrition to the attacker. However, the defender value is more favorable.
    • Example
    Defender / Attacker = requirement
    1 / 1 = must cause more than half the attrition of attacker
    2 / 1 = must cause more than equal the attrition of attacker
    1 / 2 = must cause more than 1/4 the attrition of attacker

  • If both sides do not meet quota, than they're both fined 10 mil per day(example(perhaps it would be 50mil?)), for each day that no attrition is caused. This forces action, dropping the dec, or coming to an agreement for surrender that is supported with game mechanics.

  • If either party adds members, the attrition requirement is increased.

  • If either party drops members, the attrition requirement IS NOT decreased.
    • (thus, adding or reducing members is not beneficial to either party, but is an option)

  • Since the cost of the war is on a daily basis, the attrition can determine price on a day to day basis.
    • If the attacker meets attrition quota, the cost of the war is reduced daily, up to being 0.
    If the defender meets attrition quota, the cost is increased with no limit on cap, thus forcing the attacker to quit. Game mechanics will support this and show the defender won the war.


I likely missed a few things, but i'm sitting in my truck and need to head home, so we'll have to consider what I may have missed.

Point is, this gives both sides incentive to fight and in doing so, is presented with a notable value that swings the war in their favor.
Madd Adda
#262 - 2015-09-06 20:55:48 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


My opinions are based on logic, facts, and multiple, cited, statements from the creators of the game as to what kind of game Eve is. While your views are based on, well, nothing really. Perhaps just wishful thinking or maybe some inexplicable need to hide from reality and bury your head in the sand hence are misguided.

You're welcome to your opinions, but if you want to understand why the game is the way it is, or why certain changes can or won't be made, you need to accept facts. And the simple fact is that CCP designed Eve as a full-time, PvP sandbox game and that design puts constraints on what types of game play are possible.


You can cite whom ever you wish, and dress up your arguments in any logic you think would fit your side. However, I play this game just as you do, and experience the game differently than you. Do I deny that pvp doesn't happen everywhere? No. I just hold a PVP game to a different definition. I'm free to interpret it as I please, as you have been doing. So again, I don't think of EvE as a full time PVP game by virtue of its wide range of avenues of gameplay. If you wish to have the final word, so be it.

Carebear extraordinaire
Valeria Aelahl
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#263 - 2015-09-07 07:20:06 UTC
Let me put in this way. Most corps who focus on WD...live in HS. You want to get some kills? Go to low or null.



That being said. Most WD groups wont follow you into LS, theyre too afraid of not being able to set up their insta-locks and not having control over the situation.



A good portion of corporations dont abuse the mechanic. Some do, whats so wrong with trying to put something in place to nerf HS griefers?


In fact, it seems like the only folks here who take issue with it are ones from know station/gate campers. You wanna pad your killboard? Go look for real fights...and no 2 T3C's with logi agressing a t1 dessie on undock is not a real fight. Nor is it sporting. Same field as market scamming if you ask me.

"We are the Amarr, your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Lower your shields and surrender your vessel. Resistance is futile."
Valeria Aelahl
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#264 - 2015-09-07 07:38:28 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
If you do not like war declarations, stay in an NPC corporation. Or move to another part of space. I never worry about war declarations out in Fountain, Delve, or Vale of the Silent.

If you really want to care bear in relative peace and have a mostly boring and unexciting game, there is always a place like Tenal...




You're missing the point. Not all WD groups operate in single regions. Not to mention, its a little silly to have areas off limits to you just because your group isnt able to respond to the aggression. That is not your fault. Yet youre punished for it. If youve never experienced this, then I suppose someone carebeared you into tactical superiority.

"We are the Amarr, your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Lower your shields and surrender your vessel. Resistance is futile."
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2015-09-07 09:19:12 UTC
Valeria Aelahl wrote:
You're missing the point. Not all WD groups operate in single regions. Not to mention, its a little silly to have areas off limits to you just because your group isnt able to respond to the aggression. That is not your fault. Yet youre punished for it. If youve never experienced this, then I suppose someone carebeared you into tactical superiority.


Yes it kind of is your fault. In EvE you are responsible for your own destiny. You may not like the options at your disposal, but they are there. That includes disbanding a weak corp and applying to join a stronger one that can AND will fight back. Or standard HTFU, respond to the aggression, get streamrolled, but get more experienced in the process and HTFU through time.

Right now I have an alt in a wardecce'd corp. That I haven't undocked her is entirely my fault. I say that I want teammate and especially experienced teammate support to do roams against the wardec corp, but in the end, that undock button is on my screen. Not anybody else's screen. There's no mechanic preventing me from undocking. It's not CCP's fault. It's not the fault of CCP. It's entirely in my mind. I can go out and die in a fireball, I just choose not to. No mechanic is going to change that.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#266 - 2015-09-07 10:21:30 UTC
It absolutely is your fault. If you join a Corp you are consenting to war decs and any manner of unfair and unsporting PvP they choose to inflict upon you. The game is designed around 'no rules' PvP.

If you dont like it then stay in an npc Corp and/or support the social corps idea.

Im an advocate for the structure idea. Aggressors in decs could afford to lose some initiative without neutering decs and it would enable a few things like mercs and knocking allies out of wars. But at the same time allies should be a two way thing.

(currently drafting my own wall of text)

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs