These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Fix the War Dec system

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#101 - 2015-12-14 08:55:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ah yes, now we're back to the "It's the predator's fault that the prey isn't up to snuff" part.

Roll

Tell me again how it's my fault that people who don't belong in player corps are offering themselves up as targets. Or maybe what a bad person I am for swatting those same flies who refuse to lift a finger to defend themselves.


Oh don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that you should prey on the week, as my suggestion would still allow you to do so..
I'm just laughing at the fact that you worded it as if you're some kind of bad ass because you're "willing to pay CCP to stop protecting you for the sake of combat!!!" When the truth is, you're removing CONCORD from the situation so that you can shoot a target that stands no chance against you..

Please.. Just because you paid the tiny wardec fee doesn't mean you're awesome..

Quote:

What you're suggesting is to break the mechanic. You've already admitted as much, that all you want is to nerf wars.


Lol.. the mechanic is already broken... but I get the feeling you already know this...

And I love how you keep fishing at this admission on wanting to nerf wars through a statement you intentionally took out of context because it was the part of the conversation you could use for your own personal agenda.

Ya know, when something is out of balance, someone is going to lose when a change occurs.
In this case, it would apparently be you.
You're calling it a nerf because it doesn't favor you... Some carebears would call it a buff for them because they can fight for a chance to end the war... Other carebears will still be unhappy because they want the removal of wardecs entirely.
I want a system in which fight is not only encouraged, but also the best option to reach your end goal.
I like to call it "balance"


[/quote]It means that it would cripple small and solo groups to the point of being functionally unable to operate.

Which again, despite your protests to the contrary, you have admitted is the intent. You hate smaller groups and asymmetrical warfare.[/quote]

On the contrary..
My suggestion makes small wardec entities more viable.

There would be no ally mechanic, so you're only facing the amount of members in the target corp.
You pay a good amount more for outnumbering your opponent, so smaller war corps become more viable for the sake of deccing smaller targets.
And they're free to continue deccing massive alliances, but if they're unable to defend their structure, I guess that their problem.
You shouldn't pick a fight you can't win.
This is no different than a 500 man corp deccing a 10 man corp and then Popping their POS, only with my suggestion.
However, at least you get to start with all the control, where as the defender in the 500 v 10 example has no control over that situation.


Anyway... You can keep debating yourself for now, but I'm going to sleep..
I have better things to do than sit here and argue with a computer screen...

Night all
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2015-12-14 08:58:23 UTC

I'll stand as Exhibit A. Or Exhibit 5,682 .

As a player who's first player corp was EVE Univerity, which I love love loved! They're awesome, fun, well organized, extremely sociable, and always had a wide variety of things going on.

I had to bail on them due to the Constant War Decs after the change which allowed them to be under them almost constantly.

Switched into a NPC corp to do the things I was most enjoying in the game without the constant harassment, but missed the social aspect of a large player corp like EVE Uni. Soon after I let my account lapse.

I come back every so often when CCP begs me to return with a steep 1st month back discount, so I can take a look at the changes. Since I still can't go back to the Uni which is the corp I want to be in, I typically stay for only that 1st month.

So.... yeah. The War Dec system, as it stands, forces players out of Player Corps, those players lose the social aspect of the game, then quickly lose interest because of that, and CCP loses subscribers.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#103 - 2015-12-14 09:04:56 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I'm just laughing at the fact that you worded it as if you're some kind of bad ass because you're "willing to pay CCP to stop protecting you for the sake of combat!!!"


Nothing of the sort. I'm merely pointing out that, no matter how much you attempt to degrade the gameplay and playstyle of the attacker, they are assuming as much or more risk than the defender, and putting in more effort than any PvE activity in this game.

If you claim that they're bad, well, they're still better than the defender ever could be. Which is why you hate it so much, because it all boils down to being unable to admit that you're playing the game wrong, so you think the game should change so that you aren't wrong anymore.


Quote:

Ya know, when something is out of balance, someone is going to lose when a change occurs.


Heh, the funny part will be when that statement comes back to bite you lot in the ass.

The data is clear, that PvP in highsec is a strong retention driver. There can be only one action taken with a mandate like that, and that's to proliferate and incentivize conflict in highsec, not handcuff it to a structure and cripple small corps.


Quote:

You're calling it a nerf because it doesn't favor you.


No, I'm calling it a nerf because it is a nerf, and you openly said it was intended as a nerf.


Quote:

I want a system in which fight is not only encouraged, but also the best option to reach your end goal.


I don't believe you. What you're suggesting would do otherwise, so I think you're just lying to try and justify a nerf.


Quote:

My suggestion makes small wardec entities more viable.


It actually ruins them, especially one man shows. Might as well just suggest that no corp with less than twenty members can declare war at all.

Like I said before. Even if you deleted the ally mechanic, made dec dodging a perma ban offense, and made wars free, your suggestion would still be a big, huge nerf. It would completely delete the very concept of asymmetrical warfare.

But that's what you want, after all. A nerf. Just one more nerf.

You even admitted it.

"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
#104 - 2015-12-14 09:08:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Nice try, but that quote is irrelevant, and you likely know that.

CCP does not constitute wardecs as griefing or ganking, thus in both that thread and CCP Rise's presentation at fanfest, wardecs are a non-factor, to the point where they weren't even mentioned.


Didn't read the thread, did you? The person, (I don't say player, because they were most certainly not a real player), was attempting to claim that all the "griefing" that CCP "allows" is killing the game. They basically laughed at the notion, and called it a myth.

And yes, Rise's data during the presentation took wardecs into account, it fell under non consensual PvP in highsec.

In fact, it's one of the single strongest retention drivers in the game. Meanwhile, PvE activity in highsec is strongly correlated not only with a lack of interaction with other players, but also with extremely high turnover rates for subs.



Ok.. last time, then I'm going to bed..

The comment you supplied by CCP Rise speaks specifically on "griefing".
CCP does not consider wardec mechanics as griefing, but rather that griefers will use the wardec mechanic.

This doesn't make wardecs griefing, but it doesn't make wardecs balanced either.

As far as CCP Rise's presentation, that presentation was on the basis of ganking.
The proposal was made that ganking does not hinder player retention.
Again, wardecs are not considered griefing or ganking, therefore, wardecs are a non-factor in both conversations.

Now, Rise did go on to say that player interaction, such as pvp, joining a corp, etc. etc. etc. are more tied to higher retention then less.
Now, he also stated (in a round about way) that all those stats were to be taken with a grain of salt, as they aren't exactly privy to the mindset of a player when they quit.. Having said that, with or without some potential for a major margin of error, he still did not speak of wardecs, nor their ties to retention.
The comment you linked, and the presentation were all about griefing and ganking, which does not factor in wardecs.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#105 - 2015-12-14 09:11:32 UTC
GoodGreyer Ayderan wrote:

So.... yeah. The War Dec system, as it stands, forces players out of Player Corps, those players lose the social aspect of the game, then quickly lose interest because of that, and CCP loses subscribers.


NPC corp, January 2015 to present. No other employment history exists.

Even if you aren't a lying sock puppet(which you probably are), then it sounds to me like Uni needs to improve their training program. Used to be they didn't just toss their newbies out with no idea of what to do.

It's almost like ****** corps that don't actually teach newbies, but use them as a tax farm, are the real villain here. Actually, it's a lot like that. That's probably the best example of corps that just do not belong in highsec.

I'll hazard a guess, and assume that you aren't just being insincere. Was Kelduum Revan your CEO at the time? If so, that explains a lot.

"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
#106 - 2015-12-14 09:15:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
stuffz


You know... taking my statements out of context isn't exactly making you look better, considering everyone can simply scroll up a comment or two and get the full context.


Contextual misdirection only works when the reader doesn't know what I said to begin with...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2015-12-14 09:18:21 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
stuffz


You know... taking my statements out of context isn't exactly making you look better, considering everyone can simply scroll up a comment or two and get the full context.


Contextual misdirection only works when the reader doesn't know what I said to begin with...


I'm not taking anything out of context.

You claim that you don't hate asymmetrical warfare, but you propose mechanics to cripple it, and rail against it as being unfair and unacceptable gameplay.

So either you just can't keep your positions straight, or you're just lying to try and justify nerfing something you personally dislike.

You carebears really should be glad that real players aren't like you, or we'd see ten posts a day asking to have mission running functionally deleted as a playstyle unless you have a structure anchored or some other unreasonable handcuffs.

"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
#108 - 2015-12-14 09:21:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

NPC corp, January 2015 to present. No other employment history exists.

Even if you aren't a lying sock puppet(which you probably are), then it sounds to me like Uni needs to improve their training program. Used to be they didn't just toss their newbies out with no idea of what to do.


heaven forbid someone should role a new character...

Or perhaps even use an alt to post on the forums....
Maybe some people don't like discussions on the forums to allow some sociopath to harass them in game.


However, if you have a problem with me...
You're more than welcome to come and find me in person... I'm sure I can take time out of my busy day to teach someone what real combat is like... After that... we'll grab a beer and call it a day.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#109 - 2015-12-14 09:25:53 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

heaven forbid someone should role a new character...

Or perhaps even use an alt to post on the forums....
Maybe some people don't like discussions on the forums to allow some sociopath to harass them in game.
.


See, that brings up another problem.

Why are NPC corp players allowed to post in this forum in the first place? It's the single biggest enabler of outright trolling these forums have.

So many pointless threads, so many trolls, and all because people can use NPC corp alts to post without consequence.

"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
#110 - 2015-12-14 09:25:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


I'm not taking anything out of context.

You claim that you don't hate asymmetrical warfare, but you propose mechanics to cripple it, and rail against it as being unfair and unacceptable gameplay.

So either you just can't keep your positions straight, or you're just lying to try and justify nerfing something you personally dislike.

You carebears really should be glad that real players aren't like you, or we'd see ten posts a day asking to have mission running functionally deleted as a playstyle unless you have a structure anchored or some other unreasonable handcuffs.


As per my suggestion, however many pages back now, those small entities can simply go out a take over some SOV in null sec...
Now, you no longer have to worry about defending a structure... Leave a jump clone out in null and come back to HS to pop a major SOV holding alliance without the need of a structure!!

Boom, not asymmetrical wars are totally viable!


OK... seriously... I'm going to sleep.
Got work in 5 hours and no idea how long or how hard (on call oilfield service tech can be rough)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#111 - 2015-12-14 09:28:59 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

As per my suggestion, however many pages back now, those small entities can simply go out a take over some SOV in null sec...


Yeah, you do realize this is an admission to your desire to outright delete their playstyle, right?


Quote:

Got work in 5 hours and no idea how long or how hard (on call oilfield service tech can be rough)


Best of luck, and I do mean that. My father in law lost three fingers working oil fields.

"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.
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-12-14 09:44:38 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

NPC corp, January 2015 to present. No other employment history exists.

Even if you aren't a lying sock puppet(which you probably are), then it sounds to me like Uni needs to improve their training program. Used to be they didn't just toss their newbies out with no idea of what to do.


heaven forbid someone should role a new character...

*** Or perhaps even use an alt to post on the forums.... ***
Maybe some people don't like discussions on the forums to allow some sociopath to harass them in game.


Bingo.

Yet one more example that you are BY FAR the more intelligent one in the debate between you and Kaarous.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#113 - 2015-12-14 16:27:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Yeah, you do realize this is an admission to your desire to outright delete their playstyle, right?


Not delet the playstyle.. Just not favor it over every other playstyle...


Quote:


Best of luck, and I do mean that. My father in law lost three fingers working oil fields.


Appreciated. Oil field has gotten a lot safer since back in the day.. Though, the workload hasn't gotten much easier.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#114 - 2015-12-14 18:46:33 UTC
The wardec system sucks. It has sucked since the last time they changed it. It went from a healthy meaningful way to work out differences to 'a dime a dozen' war dec corps. It needs repairing. The war dec system should NOT be a HS player farming mechaninc.

*************************************************
The goal of the war dec mechanic should be:

A means for 2 player entities to settle their differences in the violent and meaningful way of their chosing across all regions of space with no interference from CONCORD, gate guns or other policing entities. (Contracting out your dispute resolution is fine)
*************************************************

Start with that premise and move forward. The current mega dec for cheap and 'send me 10 million isk and I'll assist you' is garbage and takes all meaning, interest and value out of war decs.

Roll up 2 small corps. War dec 1 with the other. Count the assist offers that come rolling in. It's just dumb and not fun.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#115 - 2015-12-14 21:16:50 UTC
I always wonder why players want to be able to do things safely in Eve. I mean, I understand why individual people want to "win" at a game and that some people consider a constantly increasing wallet to be winning but why do they want to change the game into one where they can't actually lose? How much does it mean to win in such a situation?

Discussions like this one always remind me of kids arguing over the rules of some backyard game. "No fair, you cheated!" and efforts to make the two sides in a game even, etc etc. While I am under no illusion that we are not subject to a plethora of rules and bondaries in Eve the fact that within those boundaries there is no apparent effort to make things fair to everyone is one of the beauties, maybe even THE beauty of this game.

If you mess up in Eve you are gonna get dog stomped. This simple fact has lead to more tears, massive forum threads (like this one) and imaginary space bushido than cheat codes on the old Nintendo. Behind every claim of someone claiming to be interested in player retention, protecting the new players, making things more "realistic" is somebody who got humiliated by another player and can't understand how they could possibly be a loser.

Well, they are.

For now anyway. And maybe forever unless they change their attitude about the type of game they are playing and adapt to the game as it is. Personally, I have no understanding of why Skiffs and Procurers are even allowed to exist but whenever I go into an ice field, there they are in their dozens. So, I have to work within that reality.

Eve isn't safe. You can lose everything in seconds. Some things you CANNOT counter. There is always someone bigger, meaner and more blood thirsty. Or, another way of saying that is, there is always someone better at some aspect of the game and they are using that to make you bend to their will. I HATE THAT! But I love that its possible.

BBB

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2015-12-14 22:16:15 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:

Discussions like this one always remind me of kids arguing over the rules of some backyard game. "No fair, you cheated!" and efforts to make the two sides in a game even, etc etc. While I am under no illusion that we are not subject to a plethora of rules and bondaries in Eve the fact that within those boundaries there is no apparent effort to make things fair to everyone is one of the beauties, maybe even THE beauty of this game.

BBB


All this is fine, but most of us aren't talking about the removal of risks and losses.
We're talking about a game mechanic being balance to provide equal opportunity to both sides.
What I have proposed (if you want to go back and read it) is an attempt at creating more player interaction through pvp combat.


As per your claim of it being like kids playing backyard games...
Well... yeah..


The current wardec mechanics look something like this


The kid represents war deccers, Rob Schneider represents the defenders, and Adam Sandler represents the defenders of the current dec mechanics.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#117 - 2015-12-14 23:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bing Bangboom
Joe Risalo wrote:


All this is fine, but most of us aren't talking about the removal of risks and losses.
We're talking about a game mechanic being balance to provide equal opportunity to both sides.
What I have proposed (if you want to go back and read it) is an attempt at creating more player interaction through pvp combat.



I don't mind changing game mechanics to make things better. But I do object to the idea that changing things to provide equal opportunity to both sides is "better". Not on principle but in practice. Since we are talking wardecs I will discuss what "better" is. For the wardeccer, better might be more targets. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that wardeccers are looking for players they can destroy while controlling the environment to prevent loss to themselves. Joe expands that to include the possibility that the wardeccer may have other goals in mind but that the fact that the wardeccer can continue the war indefinitely gives him an unfair advantage. It would therefore be "better" if the defender had a way to evade the wardec that doesn't involve the many ways he already has to evade the wardec. Besides dissolving and immediately reforming the corporation (which instantly ends the wardec) there is the run (to lowdec or null), hide (in station) and disappear (by not logging on) strategies which have been used by carebears for years. So, in the tradition of "one more nerf and all will be great" we get a suggestion to make it harder for the wardeccer to maintain his war. A suggestion that coincidentally eliminates the single player corp wardeccers that seem to be the most offensive.

The idea that one player can defeat multiple players in Eve doesn't make sense if you are just thinking of firepower, mutiple role ship fleets and the benefits of cooperation. In fact, ganker philosophy is exactly the opposite. In ganking, many players working together can defeat any single player. But in wardecs it is none of the things I listed that, in the end, make the difference. It is the unbreakable will of the attacker that defeats and destroys the defender corps. An attacker who is willing to continue the war through loss, evasion and the incredible boredom of no enemy to shoot.

I haven't wardecced a corp without giving them a way to end the war. Not shockingly, it involves them buying mining permits and pledging their allegiance to James 315. They could end the war on day one. I've been one against 200 and won even though 150 of the "enemies" were Marmites (admittedly because Tora got bored with me and dropped his alliance with the wardec targets) because Eve allowed me to determine when the war was going to end. In the case I mention here, the defenders chose destruction rather than surrender. That is SO Eve.

Don't ruin the game to make it "better". "Better" led to the end of can-flipping. "Better" ended awoxing. "Better" created the monstrosity called the Procurer. The obvious question when someone says their idea makes things better is "better for who?".

On edit: My rant would probably be "better" is Joe had actually used the word "better" but I hope he doesn't object to my supposing that he believes his ideas would make Eve better.

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#118 - 2015-12-15 01:04:27 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:


stuff


I cut down due to limits.......

The reason why I try not to use the word "better" is because it is subject to personal opinion.


I continue to use the term "balance" because that's exactly what it is.
The intent to redesign a mechanic so that all entities involved have potential positive outcomes.


Now, i get where you're coming from with the rest of your comment.

However, what you must remember when it comes to the war dec mechanic is that Eve is a game.

Sure, Eve revolves around the theory of being out-gunned or out-classed by a smaller entity or being out-numbered by a larger entity.
That said, what you must consider is that all other situations in which this occurs can be avoided and/or overcome in some manner.

A war dec, in many cases, is an unfavorable activity for some entities.
This activity is being forced upon them(which is fine), and (as you stated) their best options are game breaking.

Quote:
It would therefore be "better" if the defender had a way to evade the wardec that doesn't involve the many ways he already has to evade the wardec. Besides dissolving and immediately reforming the corporation (which instantly ends the wardec) there is the run (to lowdec or null), hide (in station) and disappear (by not logging on) strategies which have been used by carebears for years. So, in the tradition of "one more nerf and all will be great" we get a suggestion to make it harder for the wardeccer to maintain his war. A suggestion that coincidentally eliminates the single player corp wardeccers that seem to be the most offensive.


Now, ignoring the "better" part since I've already mentioned that, what you're speaking here is exactly the problem with the wardec mechanics.
The counter-argument to changing the wardec mechanic is the claims that the mechanic itself is very "Eve".
....But, if you break it apart, it's really not.
What I consider "Eve" is the active involvement in the ever-changing environment that is "mostly" controlled by the players.
However, wardecs in their current form, actually suggest to the defender that dropping/folding corp, rolling corps, staying docked, staying logged, and quitting are the best ways to deal with aggression from other players.
This is NOT what we would consider "Eve"..

You want the players to fight. Being "Eve" would suggest that the players actively engage each other.
The only way to pull this off is to incentivize the defender to fight, and (sorry to say) force the aggressor to fight as well.

Compare wardecs to SOV... This is a fair comparison because the intent is to pit players against each other.
Whether your intent for attacking another SOV entity is lulz, KMs, entertainment, challenge, take SOV, or whatever else; The defender has a means at which they can counter-act your aggression.
They can defend, they can counter-assault your SOV, they can push you into HS so that you're no longer a threat.. At least, for a little while..

When it comes to wardecs, the aggressor doesn't have to perform any actions... At all, yet they still control the fight..

You want SOV? Fight to take it or you don't get your SOV.
Want KMs in null? Fight to take them, or die trying.
Want space in lowsec? Fight to take it.
Want a WH? Fight to take it
Want to get lowsec/WH KMs? fight to take them
Want to pull off a HS gank? plan it out (which isn't that difficult) and out-dps CONCORD's response time

Now, wardecs to fit into this in how they're used.. IE...
Don't like them? dec them.
Want them to leave system? Dec them..
Want them to fold corp? Dec them
Want to destroy their shiny ships? Dec them
They keep mining out all the roids as soon as they spawn? Dec them..

The reasoning for starting the war is not the problem... AT ALL...
You can dec another corp for any reason you wish..

However, unlike other activities in Eve, no amount of effort on the defender's part will allow them to "win" the war; which (contrary to Kaarous' comments/argument) is to end the war, in the VAST majority of wardecs.
If they wanted the war to keep going, you'd see a LOT more wardecs being made mutual (which the defender still doesn't control and can't even force the aggressor to stay in the war because it still gives the aggressor the ability to drop the dec at will)....
....But the fact that you rarely see wars made mutual is a sign that the preferred outcome is not the extension of the war, but the end of the war in most defender cases...

So, it becomes a matter of - No amount of effort give me any control of said outcome - Therefore... Why put effort into it?

As I keep saying, any mechanic to which the best options (as we spoke of) are for one or both of the entities to be as little involved as possible is broken, counter-intuitive to CCP's goal of increasing player interaction(which CCP ties directly to retention), and NOT what anyone considers "EVE" in most definitions, but are willing to make an exception for the sake of retaining a mechanic that is "better" for you than it is for your intended target...

If you took Eve a cut it into two teams, one is only allowed to use frigs, while the other is allowed to use anything BUT frigs and then force the two entities to fight and remove all borders and entities that would stop the fighting.

Now, those flying frigs may be able to get some kills here and there, possibly even overwhelming the other team on occassion..
But ultimately, they are well aware that no amount of effort will ever win them the war.. So... at some point, why fight? Hell, why play Eve?
THIS is almost exactly the issue with wardecs, but expressed through the example of ships and teams.
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#119 - 2015-12-15 02:40:58 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
The wardec system sucks. It has sucked since the last time they changed it. It went from a healthy meaningful way to work out differences to 'a dime a dozen' war dec corps. It needs repairing. The war dec system should NOT be a HS player farming mechaninc.

*************************************************
The goal of the war dec mechanic should be:

A means for 2 player entities to settle their differences in the violent and meaningful way of their chosing across all regions of space with no interference from CONCORD, gate guns or other policing entities. (Contracting out your dispute resolution is fine)
*************************************************

Start with that premise and move forward. The current mega dec for cheap and 'send me 10 million isk and I'll assist you' is garbage and takes all meaning, interest and value out of war decs.

Roll up 2 small corps. War dec 1 with the other. Count the assist offers that come rolling in. It's just dumb and not fun.


Careful CCP might see this.

And in their perverse manner will see it as proof that wardecs need to be extended to NPC corps.

Oh and yet further proof for some other nerf of high-sec too....
Frost Journeaux
Sub--Zero
#120 - 2015-12-15 04:28:50 UTC
Paul Pohl wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
The wardec system sucks. It has sucked since the last time they changed it. It went from a healthy meaningful way to work out differences to 'a dime a dozen' war dec corps. It needs repairing. The war dec system should NOT be a HS player farming mechaninc.

*************************************************
The goal of the war dec mechanic should be:

A means for 2 player entities to settle their differences in the violent and meaningful way of their chosing across all regions of space with no interference from CONCORD, gate guns or other policing entities. (Contracting out your dispute resolution is fine)
*************************************************

Start with that premise and move forward. The current mega dec for cheap and 'send me 10 million isk and I'll assist you' is garbage and takes all meaning, interest and value out of war decs.

Roll up 2 small corps. War dec 1 with the other. Count the assist offers that come rolling in. It's just dumb and not fun.


Careful CCP might see this.

And in their perverse manner will see it as proof that wardecs need to be extended to NPC corps.

Oh and yet further proof for some other nerf of high-sec too....

in my experience CCP only touches things that are universally accepted as good. Then makes it unrecognizable for better or worse.

really what these thread need to look like is "CCP Great work on this thing" followed but unanimous agreement of its greatness. the following day will be an announcement for some kind of Teiracide from ccp rise.

(Its ok Rise I know you mean well)