These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What happened with war decs?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2016-03-15 17:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
As a member of a small corporation in HiSec, I understand the repercussions of the War Dec frenzy.

Regardless of the change in mechanics, I feel that we as players have a responsibility to the game that extends beyond our play style. I'm not saying the following to be self serving, because war decs don't necessarily bother me, there are plenty of ways to get around them. The only reason it's profitable is people targeted by them don't know how to deal with them. If they did, people would stop spending ISK on them as there'd be little profit in it.

I'm not picking on anyone's play style here, but I am asking everyone to evaluate what their style is doing to the game and it's players. Just because I don't understand the attraction to HiSec Carebear hunting doesn't mean I have a right to bash it. To me it's not really PvP, but whatever floats your boat. Realize that the play style we use has consequences and the War Dec frenzy is one of them, regardless of how it came about.

If you analyze this, I think you'll find that the newer players in small, less experienced, corporations pay the highest price. Is this okay with you as a player?

I feel it would be smart of us as players to have a more intelligent approach to the mechanic change rather than this sledge hammer approach.


As I said in an earlier post - we're all insane. On the one side, there's the effect that the "war dec frenzy", as you put it, has: The more wars there are, the more people will cry for war dec nerfs or learn how to avoid a war. On the other side is the effect that avoidance has: The more people avoid war decs, the more wars Marmite will declare to get targets. By avoiding a war as an experienced player, you basically use the less experienced ones as a meat shield, same as wardeccers will use them as targets, simply because they don't have others.

Concerning the new players - they are perfectly valid targets in my book. Let's be reasonable here - if CCP wanted new players to be excluded from unconsensual PvP, there'd be an easy fix: Make new characters unattackable in Highsec unless they attack first. That being said - would that be a solution? How would one ever learn to deal with skullduggery and cruelty in Eve if they were excluded from it? By sparing the newbies, the situation would not get any better. It would just delay everything by whatever arbitrary time span after which they would not be considered "new" anymore. At some point, a new player WILL be the victim of unconsensual PvP, whether that's on day one or after an arbitrary "protection period". In fact, I believe he will just stay a newbie in a sense until he has been targeted by a wardeccer or ganker or scammer. It's learning by dying.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#162 - 2016-03-15 17:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
As a member of a small corporation in HiSec, I understand the repercussions of the War Dec frenzy.

Regardless of the change in mechanics, I feel that we as players have a responsibility to the game that extends beyond our play style. I'm not saying the following to be self serving, because war decs don't necessarily bother me, there are plenty of ways to get around them. The only reason it's profitable is people targeted by them don't know how to deal with them. If they did, people would stop spending ISK on them as there'd be little profit in it.
All the info on how to evade or deal with wardecs has been available for years, the problem is that acting on the information is entirely too much effort for many players and they resort to the base tactics of either rolling their corp, dropping to an NPC corp or not logging in for the duration of the dec. The mechanic itself isn't OP, as you've acknowledged there are many ways around it. What is OP is the amount of ignorance, laziness and poor leadership displayed by many of the targets.

The usual first reaction to being wardecced is to come on the forums and whine about how "hisec" should be safe and PvP free; needless to say that doesn't go down well with wardec corps and those of us that aren't ignorant, lazy or suffering from poor leadership.

Quote:
I'm not picking on anyone's play style here, but I am asking everyone to evaluate what their style is doing to the game and it's players. Just because I don't understand the attraction to HiSec Carebear hunting doesn't mean I have a right to bash it. To me it's not really PvP, but whatever floats your boat. Realize that the play style we use has consequences and the War Dec frenzy is one of them, regardless of how it came about.

If you analyze this, I think you'll find that the newer players in small, less experienced, corporations pay the highest price. Is this okay with you as a player?
I think it's fine sink or swim is the nature of the game, and this particular body of water is populated by apex predators.

My first corp was wardecced within a week of my starting Eve, most of the corp turtled up, the remainder headed off on a long term lowsec/nullsec roam; all the while taunting the wardeccers to follow us.

Quote:
I feel it would be smart of us as players to have a more intelligent approach to the mechanic change rather than this sledge hammer approach.
Such as what? CCP just removed one of the staples of a wardec corps toolbox.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#163 - 2016-03-15 18:00:27 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
As I said in an earlier post - we're all insane. On the one side, there's the effect that the "war dec frenzy", as you put it, has: The more wars there are, the more people will cry for war dec nerfs or learn how to avoid a war. On the other side is the effect that avoidance has: The more people avoid war decs, the more wars Marmite will declare to get targets. By avoiding a war as an experienced player, you basically use the less experienced ones as a meat shield, same as wardeccers will use them as targets, simply because they don't have others.


Not seeing how my going around a single sided war dec causes newbies to be a meat shield. I'm not the one declaring war to get around HiSec restrictions on in system PvP. You're blaming the victim of the aggression, experienced or not. I'm saying that if you are an aggressor here, in the current environment, you should consider adopting a better, finer tuned, targeting method for your War Decs rather than just hammering everyone in local.

Neuntausend wrote:
Concerning the new players - they are perfectly valid targets in my book. Let's be reasonable here - if CCP wanted new players to be excluded from unconsensual PvP, there'd be an easy fix: Make new characters unattackable in Highsec unless they attack first. That being said - would that be a solution? How would one ever learn to deal with skullduggery and cruelty in Eve if they were excluded from it? By sparing the newbies, the situation would not get any better. It would just delay everything by whatever arbitrary time span after which they would not be considered "new" anymore. At some point, a new player WILL be the victim of unconsensual PvP, whether that's on day one or after an arbitrary "protection period". In fact, I believe he will just stay a newbie in a sense until he has been targeted by a wardeccer or ganker or scammer. It's learning by dying.


I am a very reasonable person. You're dismissing the apparent point of HiSec. CCP doesn't want them excluded from being killed, nobody is asking for that. However, I don't think CCP's intent on getting rid of the watchlist was that HiSec poachers would go around War Deccing everyone in local without considering the consequences of what they are doing.

Again, experienced players, larger or well established corps are equipped to handle a mechanic change like this. Applying the sledge hammer tactic is actually BEYOND what the watchlist did, is kludgy at best, and hurts the new players the most. If this is somehow an acceptable method of operating to you, then, cool for you... go for it. To me it's a sub-optimal solution that actually hurts the game for a new player/corp and restricts growth. I don't think that's a good idea.

If you take a moment to see whom you are deccing, how long the corp has been in business, how many players are in it, then it's a little more responsible. It's still not optimal but at least you aren't risking driving off new blood with what is essentially a play style choice.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2016-03-15 18:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
I agree, at least to the point that it was probably not the intent of the watchlist change. But we saw it coming from ten miles away. Everyone involved with that style of gameplay should have seen it coming. And now that it has happened, you can hardly blame players for reacting in a way that will preserve their playstyle. They don't give a crap if it's newbies or veterans they are shooting. But if the experienced players avoid every war to the best of their abilities, it will unavoidably be the newbies that get shot.

I don't blame them for avoiding the war, I am merely stating, that both sides efforts to preserve their style of playing is what leads to the situation getting more severe over time and the inexperienced players are the ones that always get the short straw. And that is perfectly normal and logical - the devil takes the hindmost.

Concerning me dismissing the point of Highsec - what is the point of Highsec?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#165 - 2016-03-15 19:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
I feel it would be smart of us as players to have a more intelligent approach to the mechanic change rather than this sledge hammer approach.
Such as what? CCP just removed one of the staples of a wardec corps toolbox.

leaving pretty much just a sledge hammer and a "imaspia" sticker
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
you should consider adopting a better, finer tuned, targeting method for your War Decs rather than just hammering everyone in local.


... that's specifically the toolset that was nerfed.

In the current environment , targeted and focused wars several orders of magnitude more labour intensive to operate.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#166 - 2016-03-15 19:36:50 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Concerning me dismissing the point of Highsec - what is the point of Highsec?


My personal view of what HiSec intent is and what CCP thinks it is may differ, but looking at it from a game mechanic perspective it seems to be an area that is intended to primarily be Resource PvP (what is called 'PvE' in EVE). You get less reward because you are protected by a game mechanic intended to punish anyone that takes on your soft and squishy PvE equipped ship with a nasty PvP equipped ship.

Now, the game mechanic of the War Declaration seems to have evolved over time into what it is today. In some ways it flies in the face of the perspective I outlined previously. The loss of the watchlist is now showing (in glaring light) how easily abused the mechanic is.

The $64 question is; Does CCP intend for it to be this way or is the entire War Dec concept in need of a rethink? I mean it is proclaimed by CCP to have been started as a way to allow corporations to militarily slug it out no matter where they were with no consequences other than the direct beating on each other. That is not really how it's used now.

It became some kind of strange 'game hunting' license/bribe for poachers to buy to let them hunt Teddy Bears in HiSec. Yeah, it's funny when the poachers occasionally run across the rare Grizzly Bear, but it's mostly soft and squishy in HiSec.

Now, it's like the watchlist loss has made 'open season' on everyone and everything in HiSec acceptable. I feel this is an overreaction to the loss, and I'm only asking for players to consider the consequences to the method. I don't think CCP's counter reaction will be nice to the abusers and it may have larger repercussions than what losing the watchlist has done.

If it's now valid to just get PLEX, buy War Decs in bulk, then yeah, the consequences are going to be big. I think everyone will flood to the NPC corps and/or give up on Resource PvP (PvE) in systems where this tactic is common. It will drive newer players and possible CEO's from the game because it hits them when they are just trying to learn the ropes and are frustrated by the complex game mechanics themselves only to be whacked by some poachers all the time.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#167 - 2016-03-15 19:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Pandora Carrollon
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
I feel it would be smart of us as players to have a more intelligent approach to the mechanic change rather than this sledge hammer approach.
Such as what? CCP just removed one of the staples of a wardec corps toolbox.

Pandora Carrollon wrote:
you should consider adopting a better, finer tuned, targeting method for your War Decs rather than just hammering everyone in local.


... that's specifically the toolset that was nerfed.


I didn't know the ability to look up corporations, how many members and how long they've been active, as well as pilots and how long they've been active got nerfed. That's news to me.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Imperator Kane
Doomheim
#168 - 2016-03-15 19:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Imperator Kane
Or....

CCP could have added a bit more thought into this and just have the locator agent state that he is active or not. As so many have already stated.

Either way for small focused war deccers this is a good change though.

Cannibal Kane was my Test Character.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#169 - 2016-03-15 20:12:54 UTC
At the end of the day, people really aren't that terribly vexed by WarDecs.

There's enough collective hate against most wardeccing alliances in the game that the will to do something against them is there. People love anything to get the ball rolling, content seeds if you will.

What people are vexed about, is that there is no effective way to fight them.

That's what makes wardecs broken.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2016-03-15 20:18:24 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
The $64 question is; Does CCP intend for it to be this way or is the entire War Dec concept in need of a rethink?


I think many would agree if I said that the war system is broken and has been broken for a long time if not forever. The thing is - as far as I know nobody has come up with a better system yet. Most suggestions come from the victims of war decs and would make it really difficult, tedious or expensive if not impossible to wage war in highsec, and that's just unacceptable. Unless we get a good solution in the end, there's no point.

"Guys, change the way you play the game" is also not a solution. You can't just change the players. They are playing this game for fun (for the most part) and need some form of incentive if they are to change their playstyle. That's what I was saying earlier - if it was more effective, more rewarding, less tedious to just declare one war, put in some effort and go out and hunt, instead of declaring a hundred and sitting on jita undock all day, that's what people would be doing. Thing is - it's not.

So, yes - war decs are broken. If you can come up with a good idea, please do. I have tried and failed in the past.
Cara Forelli
State War Academy
Caldari State
#171 - 2016-03-15 22:44:00 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
I feel it would be smart of us as players to have a more intelligent approach to the mechanic change rather than this sledge hammer approach.
Such as what? CCP just removed one of the staples of a wardec corps toolbox.

Pandora Carrollon wrote:
you should consider adopting a better, finer tuned, targeting method for your War Decs rather than just hammering everyone in local.


... that's specifically the toolset that was nerfed.


I didn't know the ability to look up corporations, how many members and how long they've been active, as well as pilots and how long they've been active got nerfed. That's news to me.

Missing the point. You can wardec people who "deserve it" all you like; if you can't find them you'll still have nothing to shoot. Mass wardecs are not new. Large lazy alliances have been doing it for years. The difference is, now it's the only option left, which only punishes the smaller, more proactive pvp groups in high sec. The large alliances haven't even noticed a change.

Besides, it's really none of your business (or mine) who people choose to war dec. This is EVE. Interesting content really only happens when somebody is uncomfortable. It's the reason the game is so unpredictable and interesting. When I was new, my crappy indy corp lured some war deccers into lowsec and killed their Stratii, before tipping off the locals and watching their carriers get hot dropped. We lost the war in spectacular fashion, but it was a moral victory and also a blast. New players do not have to be defeated by war decs.

The fact that players choose their own content is what makes the game interesting. Just because you don't like someone's choice doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to make it freely.

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#172 - 2016-03-15 23:20:47 UTC
Cara Forelli wrote:

Missing the point. You can wardec people who "deserve it" all you like; if you can't find them you'll still have nothing to shoot. Mass wardecs are not new. Large lazy alliances have been doing it for years. The difference is, now it's the only option left, which only punishes the smaller, more proactive pvp groups in high sec. The large alliances haven't even noticed a change.

Besides, it's really none of your business (or mine) who people choose to war dec. This is EVE. Interesting content really only happens when somebody is uncomfortable. It's the reason the game is so unpredictable and interesting. When I was new, my crappy indy corp lured some war deccers into lowsec and killed their Stratii, before tipping off the locals and watching their carriers get hot dropped. We lost the war in spectacular fashion, but it was a moral victory and also a blast. New players do not have to be defeated by war decs.

The fact that players choose their own content is what makes the game interesting. Just because you don't like someone's choice doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to make it freely.


Sorry, I don't think you read all my posts. To quote Mr. Eastwood, "deserve has nothing to do with it". I'm not whining against anything at all. As I said earlier, I don't care what people do or have any control or want any control over it.

I'm appealing to those that just wardec in HiSec enmasse to consider their prey a little more carefully. The game kind of forces you (by ISK cost) to do so, and I'm not seeing it as a major issue but clearly some folks on this thread do. The major-ness of the issue probably is directly proportional to how new you are or the size of corp you are in.

That's a wonderful example you gave. I wish it was more on target for what I'm referring to so I could utilize it to better illustrate the point.

At the end of the day, we only have control over ourselves. Yes, that includes play style. I am not trying to restrict freedom or choice on how to play, I'm advising that players take responsibility for their choices and the effects it can have.

Poachers, Merc's, Wild Hare's, none of 'em really bug me. I tend to be safer out and about than your average Teddy Bear, but that doesn't mean I don't have a fondness for Newer Teddy Bears as they help the game grow. So, as a 'request' to the War Dec happy folks: Set some minimum's for time in play and numbers in Corp before making the Dec. It will likely be more challenging than the crappy T1 ship with basic fittings as well.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
Neadayan Drakhon
Heuristic Industrial And Development
AddictClan
#173 - 2016-03-16 01:35:45 UTC
Pookoko wrote:
hm just from lore perspective, I don't think war decs should be ever described as a means to 'bribe Concord to look the other way'.

War dec is a perfectly legal exercise where the deccer notifies Concord that his corp will engage in a war with another corp, and Corcord automatically sanctions the legal commencement of such a war within 24 hours after receiving the application, and the war dec fee is just an administrative fee.

ALL wars will be sanctioned by Concord, provided that the deccer has notified Concord according to proper procedures and paid the fees.

Game play wise non of this may make a difference, but describing it as a 'bribe' gives very wrong impression on how this works. During war time, all aggression between the entities at war are legal. CONCORD has actively sanctioned it. They are not 'looking the other way'. They know what's going on but they are not doing anything about it because they have no reason to interfere as no law is being broken.

I know most people who've commented here know this, but I just felt this need to be stressed because even after all these years we are getting people complaining "how can CONCORD allow this in high sec!" for various in game activities.


Except that's *exactly* what it is. a bribe. You are bribing CONCORD to sanction a war - notice wardec fees go away (at least the reoccuring fee) if a war is made mutual?

A standard 1 sided wardec is the deccor bribing CONCORD to allow unrestricted fighting for the period of 1 week. I will never describe it as anything other than a bribe. This is why I say you should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD to drop it within the 24 hour notice window.
Neadayan Drakhon
Heuristic Industrial And Development
AddictClan
#174 - 2016-03-16 01:54:40 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Neadayan Drakhon wrote:
My thoughts on the wardec system and how it could be improved:

Raise the per-member cost of a wardec by about 10% - making it a little more expensive per person. Then include the member count of the wardeccing corp in the count - to discourage further conglomerating of wardeccers. Additionally, remove the hardcap on wardec fees, and lock recruiting on the agressing corp once the wardec fee is paid to prevent abuse (or include a fee for each added member equal to what they'd cost if they'd been there at the start to bring them into the wardec).

And/Or:

Allow defending corps/alliances to counter-bribe CONCORD in a non-trivial way to cancel the wardec before the 24 hour waiting period is up. The counter-bribe would need to scale to the size of the corp/alliance being wardecced (and only them, not the attacker), but could cost 3-5x per person the normal wardec per-member rate. (maybe 5x under a certain size, and shrinking to a minimum of 3x above a certain size? debatable I'll admit). Could also have a minimum baseline (like 5x the minimum baseline wardec fee). No, this mechanic would not provide any sort of immunity from being re-wardec'd by the same (or any other) group, the agressor would have to decide if its worth paying another fee to try to get it to stick a 2nd time though.

And/Or:

Increase wardec fees by a percentage for each concurrent outgoing wardec (including minimums). No hard caps on the humber of wardecs, just make people think about being a bit more selective.




Response to the idea of a wardec "structure" that defenders could destroy to end the wardec.

No - because from an in-universe standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense. You're not playing king of the hill or capture the flag. It's not sov warfare either (which is itself a form of king of the hill).

Remember, wardec's are nothing more than Group-A *bribing* CONCORD to look the other way while they attack Group-B. The reasons FOR wardecing could be to go after a POS, or POCO (or soon, a Citadel) - all of which are perfectly valid objectives within the sandbox. An arbitrary wardec related structure? No. Doesn't fit. Why would anyone put up a structure that has the sole purpose of prematurely ending a war they declared.




I would also suggest that "personal" wardecs against individual members of NPC corps be allowed, but perhaps still cost the current 50mil minimum (debatable). This makes it impossible to be immune to the wardec mechanic, and possibly would encourage people to not hide in npc corps. For the purposes of these individual wardecs, the NPC FW corps would qualify, despite being at war with the opposing faction pair.




The non-mutual watchlisting of valid wartargets should function in Highsec (and only highsec) - and report something like "Player is now active in High Security space," and "Player is no longer active in High Security space" which can mean either the player has logged off or has gone into Lowsec, Nullsec or W-space.

In order

Nerf

Valid Point

Game Breaking Idea

Not a terrible way to offset a Nerf - That said from a lore pov I can see no way this makes sense. I hope these citadels enable a way to track people's online/offline status a little better. It could even be interesting if they simply displayed your current online targets in the region they are placed down in.

Yes, I intended the fee increase to be a nerf, war dec fees are too trivial; though I could see an arguement to be made for not increasing the per-person factor of the fee, but definately should count the size of the wardeccing corp, this would encourage smaller wardec corps again rather than more conglomerating.

Individual wardecs vs NPC corp members game breaking? Yeah, probably, but why should it be that simple to be immune to wardecs? I've got nothing against the idea of switching corps to dodge a dec, its at least an action - but being able to simply sit idly in an NPC corp for immunity? Nah. Could make it cost even more though? Honestly I think adding that functionality would get more people out of said NPC corps and into player corps.
Neadayan Drakhon
Heuristic Industrial And Development
AddictClan
#175 - 2016-03-16 01:56:18 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
No. more wardec means fun, if anything, fees should be lowered.

I disagree, the fees are too trivial as it stands. Maybe keep the per person cost the same, but definately include the member count of the aggressing corp in determining the overall fee.
Neadayan Drakhon
Heuristic Industrial And Development
AddictClan
#176 - 2016-03-16 02:02:51 UTC
Iria Ahrens wrote:
Commander Spurty wrote:
Join a null sec alliance, Skill inject s noob Corp alt to do your HS logistics

i say anyone that is involved in a wardec be allowed to anchor bubbles in highsec and drop Bombs.

No concord intervention is what you paid for.

No concord intervention is what you should get.

This "middle ground" is bad


No concord intervention vs the specific corps decked. AOE weapons that might hit bystanders is still off limits.

And Concord doesn't "look the other way" Concord is not some knight in shining armor. Concord is the Mob. They use war for profit and entertainment. They are sitting in their ships nearby watching, and munching on popcorn, and listening to their wallet making ding sounds.

I could see allowing bombs (smartbombs are already allowed), just have the same requirement to disable safeties and get concorded if you hit a bystander.

Bubbles... no.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#177 - 2016-03-16 04:15:39 UTC
Cara Forelli wrote:

Confirming I went AFK in Dodixie for an hour and got wardecced. As a wormhole person I'm an utterly worthless target so they clearly just go through local and dec everyone there, knowing a portion of them will stay/come back within a week. It's the only way to reliably find targets without watchlist (even if 90% of them never come back).


If you need a watchlist to see when someone who "offended" you is around, they're not much of a problem now, are they? I can totally see people wardecing other folks they have a quarrel with, but it you have to go out of your way to find them they're probably not worth it. They want to fight they'll be there. If they don't they're probably indy folk and miners playing on a alt all week.

Granted there's "something" wrong with the wardec system (mostly because if people don't show up for a week you've wasted good money) but having your targets on watchlist is kind of ret4rded. Might as well come clean and admit your so-called "target" hasn't done anything at all to deserve said wardec.

Doesn't chasing them out of "your" constellation count as a win too? What's the point of declaring war against people operating nowhere near you??
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2016-03-16 04:28:13 UTC
Addendum. Want to know what's missing in highsec? A REASON to go to war. Like, limited resources. Something that would require you to chase people out of 'your' system for. Besides POSses I can't see it.

Nullsec is a lot easier in that regard: you can keep people out of your region and to some extend you can even control the market. Since none of this is possible in high, and you can't prevent station trading or NPC corp hauling/mining, I fail to see the point in declaring war.

This may need some sauce from "highsec mercs" ..... WHY do you guys do it? Where is the gain? What targets are we talking about? (for instance, The Wraithguard has the good fortune of being dec'ed by some dudes and we live 24 jumps in nullsec. Dafuq man? What's in it for you?? How did random Highseccorp even know we exist?)
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2016-03-16 07:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Addendum. Want to know what's missing in highsec? A REASON to go to war. Like, limited resources. Something that would require you to chase people out of 'your' system for. Besides POSses I can't see it.

Nullsec is a lot easier in that regard: you can keep people out of your region and to some extend you can even control the market. Since none of this is possible in high, and you can't prevent station trading or NPC corp hauling/mining, I fail to see the point in declaring war.
That's the question: Why wardec in High Sec? If you are in for a fight there is 50+% of New Eden where you can shoot people at youre leisure. The main problem IMHO is: these people know how to shoot back while deccing a minning corp in High Sec.....
If you want fights dec a Nullsec corp, take your HQ to Nullsec and go for it.

What deccing really needs is some way that the attacker can loose and is forced to stop the war. Something like "last man standing" in a plex. If the attacker loses the war ends and the defender can't get decced again for 4 week by this corp. If he defender looses the war will be extended for 2 weeks without any costs for the attacker. The defender can get a rematch after a cooldown of 20 hours but has to pay twice the wardec costs. If the defender does't fight the normal rules apply so the attacker has to pay each week.
If the attacker doesn't meet the challenge the defender wins and the war ends. This could even be a new field of employment for mercs that bolster the ranks of industrial corps that want to get rid of decs. Entrance to the plex in a central Empire system by coin which are distributed to both corps. 1 coin per member but at least membership of the attacker +20% for the defender (so you can pay mercs to help you). You would need to put in some additional rules to prevent mercs from another timezones picking the fight when nobody is online, fair warning time for the attacker (at least an hour) etc.

Mutual warfare is excluded from the rules for obvious reasons.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#180 - 2016-03-16 08:59:31 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
What deccing really needs is some way that the attacker can loose and is forced to stop the war.
No, this is the last thing this game needs - yet another way to isolate yourself from the risks of the sandbox while carrying on with your economy-altering grinding and/or industry.

Giving more safety, even safety earned by shooting something, in a game chronically short of content, destruction and with a dangerously high rate of overproduction in the economy is not a good idea at all. There are already too many boltholes, work-arounds and just broken mechanics allowing players to produce as much as they want, safe from the other players. The fact that Citadels cannot be taken down after a war is declared is one attempt by CCP to fix this problem, but more changes are necessary so that part of the game that attracts and keeps so many people - the player-driven economy - doesn't collapse under the weight of this increasing over-production.

Geronimo McVain wrote:
Something like "last man standing" in a plex. If the attacker loses the war ends and the defender can't get decced again for 4 week by this corp. If he defender looses the war will be extended for 2 weeks without any costs for the attacker. The defender can get a rematch after a cooldown of 20 hours but has to pay twice the wardec costs. If the defender does't fight the normal rules apply so the attacker has to pay each week.
This idea is almost as bad as the quickly buried Dojo arena in its potential to kill sandbox game play. Do you really think turning a war into a contrived game of 'capture the flag' is going to make them better? Under these rules all small corps would become permadecced, and large corps would be essentially immune to attack at all by wars. Goonswarm will just set up immune XL citadels fitted with no defenses everywhere, safe in the fact they can blob their way out of every war preventing any structure reinforcement attempts against them from even starting.

If you want to play "last man standing" just go join faction warfare. Wars mechanics are there to make corporations vulnerable to attack in highsec to offset the incredibly advantageous (and content-killing) protection of CONCORD, not something that should offer 100% safety from attackers as prizes. Awarding safety as a reward for defending your stuff makes no sense in a sandbox game and will not be implemented. Wars are more likely to be removed completely and a new structure-bashing mechanic implemented, than to be shoehorned into a silly theme-park ride which spits out complete immunity from your enemy as an inducement to participate.

Wars need less ways to evade (Citadels are a step in the right direction) and more importantly, corporations need to have real benefits for their members so players want to be part of them, and want to defend them to protect those benefits. That will make wars more meaningful going forward. Vulnerable and useful structures (both belonging to the defender and the attacker), not increased safety, is the path to more meaningful fights in the future.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?