These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#141 - 2015-09-04 16:45:50 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

If you want attackers to defend something, then give them some structures that they want to use and will have to defend. There is plenty of room to make wars more interesting that way. But CCP is not going to offer war immunity as a prize for participating in a war. Eve is focused conflict and ending a war is the opposite of conflict.


It wouldn't be war immunity, you would simply be able to end that war by destroying the structure.

See, the problem with War Decs is that the aggressor has nothing to lose (apart from ships obviously, which they normally pick their target based on their lack of capability).

They must place a structure in order to declare war. the defenders can then destroy that structure to stop the war upon destruction.

The reason why I like this is that if forces both entities off of gates and stations, while also giving the defender options.

I, however, DO NOT like the idea of vulnerability timers on the structures, as it allows the aggressor to dictate when the fighting happens.
If you're going to war dec, then you better be ready to defend your structure at any time.
The players should not be allowed to dictate vulnerability windows.
It should either be completely random, or vulnerable at all times.
they don't deserve nor should they be given a pause button, especially when instigating war.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#142 - 2015-09-04 16:47:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You seriously turned that into Grr Goons?

Roll


Naa, I just used Goons as they're the only entity I know much about.
I keep my head in HS, so i'm not familiar with all the large entities in Eve.

I guess i could have said Northern Coalition, or red Fed?
either way, the point is made.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#143 - 2015-09-04 17:55:59 UTC
I look at HS war decs like I looked at null sec sov. In null sov CCP listened to and pandered to the leaders of the large coalitions/alliances. They put into play mechanics that made sov null too easy to maintain for the established large groups and impossible for new up and commers. That gave birth to the stagnant blue donut and boring game play. Guess what. The less fun it bacame, the less folks logged on to play the game. Except for a timer of interest those that didn't drop their subs played other games and logged in only when they got a ping.

The moral of the story is that stagnant and more importantly UNFUN game play mechanics sap the game of its will to continue.

CCP is unwinding their mistakes. Getting rid of the unfun mechanics. Get players re-engaged. The current war dec mechanics are directly from that period where CCP was listening a little too much to the leaders of the various large sov null groups. So now we have the current mechanics which make it difficult to maintain a HS war campaign against large entrenched sov null groups. We have mechanics that favor large war dec corps that don't know or even care about the reasons behind most war decs that they are currently involved in. It's mindless UNFUN unchallenging turkey shoots in places where folks trying to have fun in eve gather.

Limit agressive sanction acts to 10 concurrent (decs + assists).
Make cost amount scale with group size directly instead of inversely.

Screw incentives for this group or that group. Any change to the mechanics needs to be prioritized towards fun and engaging game play. Make it meaningful or no one cares.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2015-09-04 19:43:55 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

If you want attackers to defend something, then give them some structures that they want to use and will have to defend. There is plenty of room to make wars more interesting that way. But CCP is not going to offer war immunity as a prize for participating in a war. Eve is focused conflict and ending a war is the opposite of conflict.


It wouldn't be war immunity, you would simply be able to end that war by destroying the structure.

Just a warning on going down this path with him; he equates a fight to end a war as immunity from war as he seems to feel that real defender incentives to undock won't lead to more loss in a shorter timeframe than evasiveness and further that said evasiveness and inactivity are of greater importance as war goals than economic activity driven by actual loss.

The only war metrics of apparent value to him the war timeframe and the ability to inflict loss on the attacker, the former of which promotes evasion for that same period since you can't actively do anything to address it and the latter of which is for many a non-factor.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#145 - 2015-09-04 19:47:37 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I look at HS war decs like I looked at null sec sov. In null sov CCP listened to and pandered to the leaders of the large coalitions/alliances. They put into play mechanics that made sov null too easy to maintain for the established large groups and impossible for new up and commers. That gave birth to the stagnant blue donut and boring game play. Guess what. The less fun it bacame, the less folks logged on to play the game. Except for a timer of interest those that didn't drop their subs played other games and logged in only when they got a ping.


Except your claims are categorically untrue, as when they recently stopped listening to the playerbase and started putting in punitive mechanics for existing playstyles, we started seeing lower numbers than we have in half a decade. Dominion, for all it's flaws, was more popular with players and brought more people into the game. That is not disputable.

I mean, if you really want to use sov null as an example, it's an example of why people like you should have your input discarded out of hand.

Basically, you want to inflict Fozziesov on highsec wars. Since nothing save Incarna itself has driven more people away from this game, I can only surmise that you are insane.



Quote:
The current war dec mechanics are directly from that period where CCP was listening a little too much to the leaders of the various large sov null groups.


You mean back when the game was twice as popular?


Quote:

Any change to the mechanics needs to be prioritized towards fun and engaging game play.


And your suggestions, like most in this thread, are entirely contrary to that.

"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.
#146 - 2015-09-04 20:12:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

If you want attackers to defend something, then give them some structures that they want to use and will have to defend. There is plenty of room to make wars more interesting that way. But CCP is not going to offer war immunity as a prize for participating in a war. Eve is focused conflict and ending a war is the opposite of conflict.


It wouldn't be war immunity, you would simply be able to end that war by destroying the structure.

Just a warning on going down this path with him; he equates a fight to end a war as immunity from war as he seems to feel that real defender incentives to undock won't lead to more loss in a shorter timeframe than evasiveness and further that said evasiveness and inactivity are of greater importance as war goals than economic activity driven by actual loss.

The only war metrics of apparent value to him the war timeframe and the ability to inflict loss on the attacker, the former of which promotes evasion for that same period since you can't actively do anything to address it and the latter of which is for many a non-factor.
You are missing the main point. War immunity is impossible while structures are only subject to attack while under wardec. Structures have to be vulnerable, you cannot be 100% safe from an adversary thus wardecs will not be able to be ended early.

The design of the new structures is transparent. CCP is attempting to encourage players to defend their structures by making the rigs the largest part of their cost. Packing them up after receiving a wardec will now have a cost beyond just the hassle of unanchoring the structure. Therefore, players will have an incentive to defend them.

To offset this, CCP is going to make them easy to defend, and invulnerable most of the time. But during the vulnerability window they have to be defended.

There is no room is this scheme for an additional level of protection for the defenders. They will have to deal with the wardec just like everyone else has to deal with attackers during their vulnerability windows. There will be no way to end the war.

But hey, don't shoot the messenger. CCP designs this game, and they make these decisions. But Eve is afterall a full-time PvP sandbox, so I do not know why you would expect to be able to isolate yourself from the sandbox.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2015-09-04 20:37:41 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

If you want attackers to defend something, then give them some structures that they want to use and will have to defend. There is plenty of room to make wars more interesting that way. But CCP is not going to offer war immunity as a prize for participating in a war. Eve is focused conflict and ending a war is the opposite of conflict.


It wouldn't be war immunity, you would simply be able to end that war by destroying the structure.

Just a warning on going down this path with him; he equates a fight to end a war as immunity from war as he seems to feel that real defender incentives to undock won't lead to more loss in a shorter timeframe than evasiveness and further that said evasiveness and inactivity are of greater importance as war goals than economic activity driven by actual loss.

The only war metrics of apparent value to him the war timeframe and the ability to inflict loss on the attacker, the former of which promotes evasion for that same period since you can't actively do anything to address it and the latter of which is for many a non-factor.
You are missing the main point. War immunity is impossible while structures are only subject to attack while under wardec. Structures have to be vulnerable, you cannot be 100% safe from an adversary thus wardecs will not be able to be ended early.

The design of the new structures is transparent. CCP is attempting to encourage players to defend their structures by making the rigs the largest part of their cost. Packing them up after receiving a wardec will now have a cost beyond just the hassle of unanchoring the structure. Therefore, players will have an incentive to defend them.

To offset this, CCP is going to make them easy to defend, and invulnerable most of the time. But during the vulnerability window they have to be defended.

There is no room is this scheme for an additional level of protection for the defenders. They will have to deal with the wardec just like everyone else has to deal with attackers during their vulnerability windows. There will be no way to end the war.

But hey, don't shoot the messenger. CCP designs this game, and they make these decisions. But Eve is afterall a full-time PvP sandbox, so I do not know why you would expect to be able to isolate yourself from the sandbox.

Trust me, you don't need to further double down on your series of contradictions to me. I'm just warning Joe it's coming so he can weigh the merits of ignoring this line of thinking against trying to bring reason to the unreasonable.

You feel free to keep on stating that fighting wars equals immunity and isolation, that something that needs to be fought for and won is a protection that is granted, and that those defenders without structures are fine having no reason to ever engage in a war.

But hey, if you feel CCP wants people to continue to have no reason to fight in a PvP sandbox and adding reasons to do so is not on their agenda, cool. With logic like that we have nothing further to discuss.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#148 - 2015-09-04 21:00:55 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
You feel free to keep on stating that fighting wars equals immunity and isolation, that something that needs to be fought for and won is a protection that is granted, and that those defenders without structures are fine having no reason to ever engage in a war.
You are, as you know, mis-characterizing my position. Fighting a war does not equal immunity and isolation. Providing an 'out' from the war does that though.

I am not sure how you can claim that a mechanism that allows a group to stop a war does not provide immunity to that war, because that is exactly what it does. And I am not sure how you can claim that preventing someone from attacking you is not isolating yourself from the PvP sandbox because that is exactly what such ability to isolate yourself from a war does.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
But hey, if you feel CCP wants people to continue to have no reason to fight in a PvP sandbox and adding reasons to do so is not on their agenda, cool. With logic like that we have nothing further to discuss.
I guess we don't. CCP has decided that the potential loss of the structure is going to be the reason for people to fight, not some promise of safety.

You are going to have to deal with that.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2015-09-04 21:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
You feel free to keep on stating that fighting wars equals immunity and isolation, that something that needs to be fought for and won is a protection that is granted, and that those defenders without structures are fine having no reason to ever engage in a war.
You are, as you know, mis-characterizing my position. Fighting a war does not equal immunity and isolation. Providing an 'out' from the war does that though.

I am not sure how you can claim that a mechanism that allows a group to stop a war does not provide immunity to that war, because that is exactly what it does. And I am not sure how you can claim that preventing someone from attacking you is not isolating yourself from the PvP sandbox because that is exactly what such ability to isolate yourself from a war does.

Simple, a war is a period of free aggression. If the only way to end the war is to expose yourself to that aggression you inherently cannot be immune to it. Ending a war through a fight and an "out" to that war are not the same thing, but you continue to equate them.

That's the issue with your position, you are very much stating that a fight over an asset to end a war equals an out to that war. And the mechanic I was proposing was a fight. So either a fight cannot equal immunity and isolation or it can. If it can't then the argument is wrong because said fight is needed to end the war.

The end of it all is this, wars provide open conflict between entities and this mechanic preserves that and only introduces a potential variable end point, but that end point is also a matter of open confrontation, subject to the same open, confrontation combat and loss and thus war as exists otherwise.

If you have to fight for it's it's not immunity, it's an earned benefit.

Edit: And be assured, I'm not misrepresenting anything, but I am genuinely unable to fathom how you find your conclusion here to be rational. I very truly cannot understand it. To the point where I believed you to be doing the intentional and knowing mischaracterization starting back with you "carebearism" appeals.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#150 - 2015-09-04 22:14:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Simple, a war is a period of free aggression. If the only way to end the war is to expose yourself to that aggression you inherently cannot be immune to it. Ending a war through a fight and an "out" to that war are not the same thing, but you continue to equate them.
They are exactly the same thing. Ending a war is ending a war. When you do something to end a war, you are now safe and immune. Your opponent cannot touch you, not because you have completely beaten him, because of some arbitrary game mechanics. You are safe from him, no longer at risk. How do you not see this?

I mean I can see your point that this might motivate people to fight, but clearly such motivation comes with the result that if you are successful, you are now safe. You have to acknowledge that, no?

Quote:
That's the issue with your position, you are very much stating that a fight over an asset to end a war equals an out to that war. And the mechanic I was proposing was a fight. So either a fight cannot equal immunity and isolation or it can. If it can't then the argument is wrong because said fight is needed to end the war.
Again, your "fight" is followed by immunity. That is the problem, not the fight itself. CCP is not going to give you immunity as a prize for fighting, especially when that immunity breaks the ability to reinforce the multiple vulnerability windows required to take down one of these new structures.

I am not sure why you cannot see how broken this would make the new structures.



Quote:
The end of it all is this, wars provide open conflict between entities and this mechanic preserves that and only introduces a potential variable end point, but that end point is also a matter of open confrontation, subject to the same open, confrontation combat and loss and thus war as exists otherwise.

If you have to fight for it's it's not immunity, it's an earned benefit.

Edit: And be assured, I'm not misrepresenting anything, but I am genuinely unable to fathom how you find your conclusion here to be rational. I very truly cannot understand it. To the point where I believed you to be doing the intentional and knowing mischaracterization starting back with you "carebearism" appeals.
That is the key point - open conflict. It is not open conflict if you can stop the fight without my consent.

I am not sure why I am arguing with you. I am 100% sure that CCP will not offer immunity from wardecs/the ability to end wardecs after seeing their plan for the new citadels. I have no say in the decisions anyway. If you have an issue with how wardecs work, I suggest you try to convince our CSM representatives to the benefits of giving corporations the ability to end wars.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2015-09-04 22:49:43 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Simple, a war is a period of free aggression. If the only way to end the war is to expose yourself to that aggression you inherently cannot be immune to it. Ending a war through a fight and an "out" to that war are not the same thing, but you continue to equate them.
They are exactly the same thing. Ending a war is ending a war. When you do something to end a war, you are now safe and immune. Your opponent cannot touch you, not because you have completely beaten him, because of some arbitrary game mechanics. You are safe from him, no longer at risk. How do you not see this?

I mean I can see your point that this might motivate people to fight, but clearly such motivation comes with the result that if you are successful, you are now safe. You have to acknowledge that, no?

Quote:
That's the issue with your position, you are very much stating that a fight over an asset to end a war equals an out to that war. And the mechanic I was proposing was a fight. So either a fight cannot equal immunity and isolation or it can. If it can't then the argument is wrong because said fight is needed to end the war.
Again, your "fight" is followed by immunity. That is the problem, not the fight itself. CCP is not going to give you immunity as a prize for fighting, especially when that immunity breaks the ability to reinforce the multiple vulnerability windows required to take down one of these new structures.

I am not sure why you cannot see how broken this would make the new structures.



Quote:
The end of it all is this, wars provide open conflict between entities and this mechanic preserves that and only introduces a potential variable end point, but that end point is also a matter of open confrontation, subject to the same open, confrontation combat and loss and thus war as exists otherwise.

If you have to fight for it's it's not immunity, it's an earned benefit.

Edit: And be assured, I'm not misrepresenting anything, but I am genuinely unable to fathom how you find your conclusion here to be rational. I very truly cannot understand it. To the point where I believed you to be doing the intentional and knowing mischaracterization starting back with you "carebearism" appeals.
That is the key point - open conflict. It is not open conflict if you can stop the fight without my consent.

I am not sure why I am arguing with you. I am 100% sure that CCP will not offer immunity from wardecs/the ability to end wardecs after seeing their plan for the new citadels. I have no say in the decisions anyway. If you have an issue with how wardecs work, I suggest you try to convince our CSM representatives to the benefits of giving corporations the ability to end wars.
Regarding the csm, i believe one of them posted a similar suggestion not too long ago on another thread, but the entire point of this subforum is to have these discussions. If you don't want to do that then why are you even here?

Also, what metric of open combat should leave the aggressor as the sole determiner of the end point of a war? That aggressor has just as much capability to field opposition to an attempt to end the war. If a fights results boil down to asking permission then the fight itself is a non determining factor, and thus largely meaningless.

Lastly, the end of every war is followed by immunity by the reason you seem to be following. Be it 2 days, 7 days or 30 days, once the war is over the defender is "immune" to further aggression. Further it's done by the arbitrary mechanic that is a timer. If sytems that grant "immunity" with "arbitrary mechanics" is an issue then the entire war system is flawed in a fundamental way. All corps are immune untill arbitrarily not and then arbitrarily are again. The only dofference is a static window vs a variable one and the ability for one side to have their actions affect that window directly which seems far more gameplay oriented and sandboxy to me than "7 days".

To the idea that this safety is bad, that can only be the case if not being perpetually at war is a problem. Corp opperate in that safe form as a default for the most part rather than as an exception. I can see the argument of safety, but can't see immunity from a single instance of a war as being an issue when its an inevitable conclusion anyways.

One piece of reasoning you do have in your favor is upcoming structures and their capture mechanics, but those are borderline unfeasable with wars as is. If the point is to reduce conflict out of the why bother reasoning from aggressors and have only pro fessional mercs bother then sure, its fine. But again that's a missed conflict opportunity imho.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#152 - 2015-09-04 22:57:34 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Also, what metric of open combat should leave the aggressor as the sole determiner of the end point of a war?


Because that's what they're paying for.


Quote:

To the idea that this safety is bad, that can only be the case if not being perpetually at war is a problem.


False.

The ability to have a war not able to last out a week is a problem. Because that's how long it will take to capture or destroy the new structures, thanks to the fact that they will have three freaking reinforcement timers.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2015-09-04 23:13:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Also, what metric of open combat should leave the aggressor as the sole determiner of the end point of a war?


Because that's what they're paying for.


Quote:

To the idea that this safety is bad, that can only be the case if not being perpetually at war is a problem.


False.

The ability to have a war not able to last out a week is a problem. Because that's how long it will take to capture or destroy the new structures, thanks to the fact that they will have three freaking reinforcement timers.

Great, so the idea is they pay for something they don't have to defend in any way? That seems like an opportunity for conflict to me.

Structure times are just plain bad for highsec though. That i admit, but as its own issue. Even a lack of a war goal doesn't solve that.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#154 - 2015-09-04 23:15:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Regarding the csm, i believe one of them posted a similar suggestion not too long ago on another thread, but the entire point of this subforum is to have these discussions. If you don't want to do that then why are you even here?
We are here to discuss ideas to make this game better, not continually bang our head against the wall that is the game that CCP has designed. You have proposed an idea. I have told you why I think it is unworkable, and why I think CCP will never implement it.

If you cannot even see my point of view, there is very little to discuss. Take it up with the CSM - it doesn't bother me as I am sure you will get nowhere. It is not my place to defend CCP's design decisions as that is up to them.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, what metric of open combat should leave the aggressor as the sole determiner of the end point of a war? That aggressor has just as much capability to field opposition to an attempt to end the war. If a fights results boil down to asking permission then the fight itself is a non determining factor, and thus largely meaningless.
This is a game founded on non-consensual PvP. The non-consensual bit is what leaves the agressor as the sole determiner of the end point of war. Otherwise, it is no longer non-consensual, but consensual.

This is just basic English. If you reject the position that Eve prominently features non-consensual PvP then all I can tell you is that you are wrong. You should do more reading on what type of game this is and who designed it.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lastly, the end of every war is followed by immunity by the reason you seem to be following. Be it 2 days, 7 days or 30 days, once the war is over the defender is "immune" to further aggression. Further it's done by the arbitrary mechanic that is a timer. If sytems that grant "immunity" with "arbitrary mechanics" is an issue then the entire war system is flawed in a fundamental way. All corps are immune untill arbitrarily not and then arbitrarily are again. The only dofference is a static window vs a variable one and the ability for one side to have their actions affect that window directly which seems far more gameplay oriented and sandboxy to me than "7 days".
Wardecs are not flawed. They are there to promote conflict, albeit in a limited way, between corporations in highsec. The mechanics are not there to limit such conflict.

Wars are a necessary evil to get around the limitations CONCORD imposes on the sandbox.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
To the idea that this safety is bad, that can only be the case if not being perpetually at war is a problem. Corp opperate in that safe form as a default for the most part rather than as an exception. I can see the argument of safety, but can't see immunity from a single instance of a war as being an issue when its an inevitable conclusion anyways.

One piece of reasoning you do have in your favor is upcoming structures and their capture mechanics, but those are borderline unfeasable with wars as is. If the point is to reduce conflict out of the why bother reasoning from aggressors and have only pro fessional mercs bother then sure, its fine. But again that's a missed conflict opportunity imho.
Safety is terrible from a sandbox perspective. It stifles conflict, protects assets, and breaks the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is necessary in some form to protect new players, casual players and so forth, but it should not be given free to veteran players capable of defending themselves. Players should have to defend what they are harvesting and building, not hide behind free protection offered by NPCs.

Players who do this are the worst type of carebears - abusing the safety that is needed for new player, to grow their wallet without expending any effort to protect themselves. It breaks so many things in the sandbox and is the cause of much of the problems we see in Eve today - veterans grinding ISK in relative safety in highsec, instead of in other spaces where they would serve as conflict drivers.

Again, feel free to argue with me, or continue to whine and complain about how you "need" more safety or you won't fight. Everyone sees through your self-serving attempt metagaming and there is no chance you will get war immunity as some sort of plum to induce you to fight. Once the new structures are implemented you will have to fight, or lose most of the value of your investment - you will have no choice. Well, you could always not deploy the structures to begin with if you do not have fortitude to defend them which is also perfectly fine by me.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#155 - 2015-09-04 23:29:59 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Great, so the idea is they pay for something they don't have to defend in any way?


No, the idea is to pay a fee to remove the presence of Concord between two groups in highsec, for one week at a time.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#156 - 2015-09-05 00:17:46 UTC
Ok, here... I'm going to break this down a good bit more a remove all the rules I had implemented earlier.

Structure - War Banner
Purchased from CONCORD NPCs directly.

Structures are NOT cheap
Small - 500 mil
Medium - 800 mil
Large - 1.5 bil

Structures have increasing HP.


  • There is no vulnerability windows. If you're willing to declare war, it is 23/7. Structure is always vulnerable.

  • Non-combatants (IE players not in either corp) will be CONCORDED if attacking the structure.

  • It takes 24 hrs for the structure to anchor, and has immunity while anchoring. This gives both parties their 24hr countdown to the start of war.

  • It takes 24hrs to de-anchor the structure, which represents the countdown to the end of war. Structure is again immune during this time. Structure must be fully anchored for a minimum of 5 days before it can be unanchored, (thus negating "snap wars" in which the aggressor would anchor and then unanchor in order to take advantage of 24hr of war with an immune structure.)

  • The war has no time limit. However, the Aggressor (owner of the structure) must pay CONCORD a rental fee of 100mil per week. Not having the isk in your corp wallet will result in CONCORD confiscating the structure and the war ending. (perhaps a 24hr de-anchor on this as well)

  • Both corps are free to recruit, but cannot join an alliance. however, the defender can hire mercs. Aggressor can simply recruit, but cannot hire, thus meaning all aggressors must be under the corp and/or alliance flag before war starts.

  • (This is a questionable one) Sov holding entities can only be wardecced by other Sov holding entities and does not require a structure, but has a 200mil per week CONCORD fee. This negates harassment corps, and forces Sov entities to declare war with that corp/alliance instead of creating and/or using a corp/alliance that is not tied to Sov. (Again, this does not require a structure as your purpose for declaring war it to try to keep the other Sov holding entity out of HS, in order to break their supply chain.)

  • HOWEVER, Sov holding entities can dec a non-Sov entity (using a banner) if the non-Sov entity aggresses the Sov entity, and visa versa.


With HS wars, the structure can be destroyed by the defender in order to end the war upon destruction of the structure.
This does NOT support war immunity.

Benefits to the aggressor

  1. Gives the aggressor a way to hopefully encourage the defender to undock
  2. Defender can choose the structure that best suits them. Either low cost lower HP, or high cost higher HP.
  3. Pulls the defender away from stations and gates.
  4. Once the structure has been recovered, it can be re-used for other wars, as long as it wasn't destroyed, or confiscated.


Benefits to the defender

  1. Gives the defender an option to end the war through aggression
  2. Forces the aggressor to pick their battles wisely when starting a war.
  3. Forces the aggressor to actually fight, as opposed to only logging in when the scout finds easy prey (though, the aggressor can still pull this off.
  4. Much like with the aggressor, it allows them to pull the aggressor away from stations and gate.



Again, this does not give the defender immunity. It will be extremely risky for them to undock and attempt to take down the structure. However, this alleviates the head ache of 5 man corps that wardec 200 man corps, just to pull out some easy kills on weak targets.
this is all too common, and the defender's only options to avoid this, with the current system, is to not undock, or have everyone online just so one person can mine or run a mission.. However, having a large group online will keep the aggressor from logging in, which defeats the purpose of having the large group online, seeing as how they're likely not doing anything but ship spinning, or orbiting a ship...
This makes it so that being a defender is either unfair, or pointless. Thus, they need a way to force the aggressor to fight or get gone.

If you are in a 5 man corp that war decs a 200 man corp and that 200 man corp undocks and starts shooting your structure, well then you probably picked a fight you couldn't win. Maybe you should start recruiting...

Now, the only thing missing from this is a way to keep 200 man corps from perma-deccing 5 man corps that don't have the fleet to be able to attack a structure... I'll need help to figure out a balance for this one... Unless we figure that 200 man corp will get bored since no one is undocking? But that's a pretty bad mechanic, which oddly enough is the current mechanic...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#157 - 2015-09-05 00:28:34 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Again, this does not give the defender immunity. It will be extremely risky for them to undock and attempt to take down the structure.


It absolutely does give them immunity, since you outright said it has a 24 hour vulnerability window. Meaning you just wait til they go to sleep, and poof, the wardec goes away. This gets worse when you realize that CCP has outright said no more structure shooting. Your Macguffin would by default be subject to the entosis mechanic, which makes it a simple matter of finding ten minutes in which the other guy is asleep in a 24 hour period.


Quote:

However, this alleviates the head ache of 5 man corps that wardec 200 man corps, just to pull out some easy kills on weak targets.


QuestionQuestionQuestion

Are you kidding me? That's one of the best possible uses for decs, and some of the best content involved, those guys are doing it right in the best way possible. Why would you seriously want to cripple one man shows too?

You seriously have posed the worst ideas I have heard in a while, and I'm in the freaking Army for crying out loud.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2015-09-05 00:48:08 UTC
A war end brought through force is not consensual. It allows both parties an incentive to aggress and allows the defender to come out of a passive role for a potential but non-material gain. Non-concensual pvp is not harmed by this idea but rather allows further non-consensual counter aggression.

That seems very much in line with the premise of the game. I never rejected the idea of pvp and litterally got behind this idea for the opposite reasons you continue to attribute to it falsely. There is no reason to do more reading since the promotion of pvp is the goal here.

And, yes, if the issue is one of arbitrary systems then the war system is flawed. If not there is no reason to oppose adding another war goal for that reason. Wardecs are mechanically arbitrary. That they serve a purpose doesn't counter this or suggest they are even the best mechanism for that purpose, or are implemented in the best way. As you rightly poiny out the new structures but up against the limits of the war system.

Now one thing I will say about the supposed observations about CCP's intents is this: CCP has yet to suggest through redistribution of content or mechanics changes that the balance of safety errors so severely in any direction that it needs immediatelly revised, or that highsec is not an intended method of play for whatever age of player.

This may not be the most accurate interpretation of events, but I have no reason to find it less plausable than your own reasoning.

As far as accusations of self servitude, you do realize current mechanics allow for far more safe alternatives already yes? The idea is far less safe then most potential war responses right now, and in fact not safe at all unless you consider guaranteed aggression safe. Your accusations of self servicing metagaming do make it clear you don't know my intents or personal in game motivations though. That said you seem so thoroughly attached to that idea now that nothing could make you think otherwise, but that certainly doesn't make it true.

Maybe try sticking to the idea anyways instead of the ad hominem stuff? It really is getting pretty tired at this point and it's not like I'm doing anything of a similar nature.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#159 - 2015-09-05 00:55:05 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are mechanically arbitrary.


Concord is inarguably moreso.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2015-09-05 00:58:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are mechanically arbitrary.


Concord is inarguably moreso.

You have my full agreement there, alongside the repeated notion that it may not be the best solution for its intent.