These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Wardec Change Proposal

Author
Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2016-09-14 08:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
If there is no other reason that the wardec groups would have for erecting a Citadel (or other Corp that might want to declare war at some point), then I'm not sure that this solves much.

At one end of the spectrum, small independent players/Corps might want to declare war on someone else, because they have a real goal in doing so. At the other end, there are the large wardeccing entities with their 200+ wardecs per week.

At first thought, this proposal puts a huge burden on the small individuals/Corps/Alliances in an attempt to affect the large groups. It would effectively cut out many of the uses of the wardec mechanics that people commonly see as 'legitimate' reasons to go to war.

If for example, a small industrial/mining Corp has local competition that want to remove, they would need to justify the time and expense to erect a Citadel just so they could declare war, while the opponent could still immediately dissolve Corp and reform a new one, or drop key characters to NPC Corps and continue through trades to maintain low taxes and keep income in the Corp.

As a result, especially at the small end of wardecs, all the burden is shifted to the attacker with no additional skin in the game for the defender.

Rather than a stick approach to wardec changes, I think I'd rather see a carrot approach.

It's a masochist's endeavour to propose changes to the wardec mechanics, because no system is going to ever be perfect, however since I like a bit of self-flaggelation these are changes I would more likely suggest:

1. Change the name of 'Surrender' to 'Cease Fire' or 'Truce'

Player ego is a big thing in Eve. The thought of an attacker surrendering is kind of crazy. For many defenders, same thing. They either don't want to surrender, or believe that a surrender will be followed by many more wardecs to extract ISK.

However, there is nothing inherently wrong in the mechanics of surrender, it's just a ****** name.

Let players keep their pride and negotiate something other than a surrender, making it a bit of a softer thing, but still with the same outcome.

That way, a losing attacker might be willing to offer a 0 ISK cease fire, which the defender can accept and then everyone continues on their merry way.

2. Instead of a 'war office' to allow wardecs, introduce an 'intel office' or 'hacking team' as a module for Citadels.

So, rather than requiring an office to be able to declare wars, introduce a way to gain back the watchlist system against enemies.

Corps who have a Citadel, fitted with an Intel Office are able to tap into the CONCORD/NPC Corp networks (or whatever other story) either electronically, or through humint and know when their opponents logon or logoff.

After all, if NPC locator agents have networks that inform them of a characters whereabouts, it should be possible for us super human capsuleers to be able to tap into that system in a limited way at least to know if a character has just been spotted somewhere (not where, just that they are online). We're half computer as it is. Surely in 20,000 years from now hacking will still be a thing.

Give a positive reason to have a Citadel rather than a negative.

It gives something defenders can shoot if they want to and the loss woudn't be an ISK thing, it would be an ego thing.

It wouldn't be compulsory by any means, but an intel office that provides limited watchlist functionality back would be an incentive to have additional assets at risk.

Big potential downside would be that lowsec/nullsec groups could use an alt Corp in highsec to bring back Intel on Titan and super cap pilots through wardec watch lists. So I don't know how possible it would be to restrict it to highsec only. Might make the whole thing impossible.

3. Sliding wardec costs

Personally, I don't see the need to break up the big wardec groups, however if that was something that would be a positive thing for highsec aggression, then slide the cost of wardecs up after the first 50.

Still allow Corps/Alliances to have 50 wardecs at current prices, but after that increase the price exponentially. If large wardec groups still want to maintain their 200+ decs a week, then they need to do so through several smaller Corps/Alliances; which might encourage defenders to try to engage, especially if there is a Citadel to scalp.

4. Remove faction police during wars. If CONCORD can be switched off, so can facpo.

This is a purely selfish suggestion, but with large numbers of our Alliance members being pirate sec status, coming to highsec to help new players is a PITA.

Let us enter highsec during a wardec so we can bring defense to our highsec players and/or consider engaging the attackers or their assets.

At the moment the attackers get the help of NPCs, so why bother?

Cut allies at the same time. At least don't make them free.


I'll probably be left bleeding to death on the floor after the self-inflicted wounds that result from thinking about wardec mechanic changes, but that would be my suggestion.

There will always be whingers when it comes to aggression in highsec and no one group or side should be punished by the mechanics. Leave the players to inflict the punishment on each other as the current mechanics allow.
Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2016-09-14 08:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Quick follow on.

Why link changes in surrender mechanics name to +ve aspects of a Citadel for wardeccers, encourage play for smaller groups?

If an attacker is maintaining multiple wardecs and a Corp is able to reinforce their Citadel, then perhaps they'll be offered a truce to take if they want, or a good fight if not.

If that wardec group is at risk of losing their intel against all their other wars because one group has the balls to put pressure on them, then they might see benefit in offering a truce.

\Maybe not, but some defenders might see that as a possibility they can focus on, if the wardec group has a Citadel for the intel.

The only way this could work though would be to restrict the number of Intel Offices to 1 at a time per Corp/Alliance. Don't know how technically possible that is.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#23 - 2016-09-14 08:47:31 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

1. Change the name of 'Surrender' to 'Cease Fire' or 'Truce'

Player ego is a big thing in Eve. The thought of an attacker surrendering is kind of crazy. For many defenders, same thing. They either don't want to surrender, or believe that a surrender will be followed by many more wardecs to extract ISK.

we have a war that was started 2016.06.13 and is ongoing for sole reason that raz will not push a button marked "Surrender"
havent seen the lads in months but still at war.
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#24 - 2016-09-14 13:07:24 UTC
Yes my carebear friend. We need free wars. Idiot. You do not bring balance to the force. Back to padwan school you go.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#25 - 2016-09-14 14:23:20 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


4. Remove faction police during wars. If CONCORD can be switched off, so can facpo.

This is a purely selfish suggestion, but with large numbers of our Alliance members being pirate sec status, coming to highsec to help new players is a PITA.

Let us enter highsec during a wardec so we can bring defense to our highsec players and/or consider engaging the attackers or their assets.



So for the cost of an alt corp to mutualize a wardec and 50m, nobody ever has to deal with facpo again?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2016-09-14 14:25:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


4. Remove faction police during wars. If CONCORD can be switched off, so can facpo.

This is a purely selfish suggestion, but with large numbers of our Alliance members being pirate sec status, coming to highsec to help new players is a PITA.

Let us enter highsec during a wardec so we can bring defense to our highsec players and/or consider engaging the attackers or their assets.



So for the cost of an alt corp to mutualize a wardec and 50m, nobody ever has to deal with facpo again?

Facpo suck anyway. I could go with that, because:

Scipio Artelius wrote:
...purely selfish suggestion


Maybe a modification based on standings with the faction rather than sec status.

If I have good standing with a particular faction, why are they shooting me when I'm liked by them?

I can understand being shot by factions that dislike me (even if I have a high sec status), but not by ones that do.

That would at least let us get our new players into areas we can assist them in if they don't want to leave highsec.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#27 - 2016-09-14 15:29:48 UTC
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Yes my carebear friend. We need free wars. Idiot. You do not bring balance to the force. Back to padwan school you go.



It would not be free at all, because wardeccing the entire game would actually carry a built in risk of reprisal.

Right now, such a risk fundamentally does not exist as there's nothing actually in play.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#28 - 2016-09-14 15:44:32 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Im sure it will happen from time to time but the players can already band together against any agressor they want.



I've done a lot of antagonist play in this game. It annoys me how limited the options are for counter play against a wardec. I don't mind being thwarted by good counter play, that much makes the game interesting, but it should raise quite the red flag to any sound judgment that corps/alliances are able to maintain 300+ wardecs at once, safely, with no consequences.

Wardecs are a core part of the game. I just think they should be balanced a little more by force of arms, rather than ISK.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#29 - 2016-09-14 16:00:21 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Yes my carebear friend. We need free wars. Idiot. You do not bring balance to the force. Back to padwan school you go.



It would not be free at all, because wardeccing the entire game would actually carry a built in risk of reprisal.

Right now, such a risk fundamentally does not exist as there's nothing actually in play.

Damn, got us there, exploding ships with the power of our mind this whole time.
Valkin Mordirc
#30 - 2016-09-14 17:51:42 UTC
Literally almost the entire merc community just told you that your idea is bad.


And your idea was free wardecs.


Like bro. XD It's a bad idea.
#DeleteTheWeak
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#31 - 2016-09-14 18:02:36 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Faylee Freir wrote:
Im sure it will happen from time to time but the players can already band together against any agressor they want.



I've done a lot of antagonist play in this game. It annoys me how limited the options are for counter play against a wardec. I don't mind being thwarted by good counter play, that much makes the game interesting, but it should raise quite the red flag to any sound judgment that corps/alliances are able to maintain 300+ wardecs at once, safely, with no consequences.

Wardecs are a core part of the game. I just think they should be balanced a little more by force of arms, rather than ISK.

Oh hey there. I noticed youre dodging my question. Can you actually list some mechanics that exclusively give the agressor the advantage?

You want to know where the advantage lies? Its in the fact that most people that war dec are going to be ready to handle most situations. Outside of being baited or blobbed, war dec groups have refined strategies and kniwledge to gain an upper hand on someone thats not even wanting to fight...

Hell even against someone thats prepared to fight what they think is a "fair" 1v1 theres almost no chance, because lets face it. The way i fit my ship with my logi on hand... Im like 4 of your ships combined. So the problem isnt that groups lack things to shoot at because... Woo hoo!!!!! Im right here in Sheroo killing your corp mates golem, dropping billions on grid to secure a kill. You guys play in low and null so thats where your focus is. You dont want to have to come to highsec to hunt us down and take the effort to properly bait. You just want a stationary target that you can form a fleet up for.

The issue is still with you and most people that arent interest in fighting, amd complaining that war decs suck when they get killed. Well guess what Vicky, this is eve and at the end of the daym the better, more prepared, and more knowledgable will win. Just so happens that when you play against the plebs of new eden, they are severly hamdicapped. Not my fault.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#32 - 2016-09-14 20:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
Faylee Freir wrote:
The issue is still with you and most people that arent interest in fighting, amd complaining that war decs suck when they get killed. Well guess what Vicky, this is eve and at the end of the daym the better, more prepared, and more knowledgable will win. Just so happens that when you play against the plebs of new eden, they are severly hamdicapped. Not my fault.


Aren't interested in fighting? Oh mercy, that's a good one!

Again, I prefaced this entire thread with, 'Picking on the defenseless is a core part of EvE, wardecs are a great way to introduce risk to an otherwise riskless part of space.' I still stand by that, and I happen to respect it. Looking at your KB, I can only state you are the one wholly disinterested in anything that resembles a fight. Ganks, sure, but fights? Hub-camping filth-wizardry, all of it. You wouldn't know or want a fight if it came and tapped you on the head, you'd have been docked when said fight was 15 jumps out.

Again. I respect that mode of play if that is your choice. It's a sandbox. I just have no way to bring the fight to you at all.


Faylee Freir wrote:
I'm right here in Sheroo killing your corp mates golem, dropping billions on grid to secure a kill. You guys play in low and null so thats where your focus is. You dont want to have to come to highsec to hunt us down and take the effort to properly bait. You just want a stationary target that you can form a fleet up for.


Woo-hoo, whole billions! Ye gads! I don't want a stationary target, I happen to enjoy the hunt. In fact, the hunt is absolutely one of my favorite parts of the game. You know, a real hunt, chasing down active prey that may be packing a loaded cyno, where both parties may have chips on the table. Not this hilarious seal-clubbing world called high sec where even if they prey wanted to fight back, they have no cynos, they can't command destroyer you off the station, they have no bubbles, and you have no actual assets you can't get safe or neutral logi to safety.

So many mechanics to lean on, so few to offer an actual way to force an end to a war.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2016-09-14 22:08:31 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Yes my carebear friend. We need free wars. Idiot. You do not bring balance to the force. Back to padwan school you go.



It would not be free at all, because wardeccing the entire game would actually carry a built in risk of reprisal.

Right now, such a risk fundamentally does not exist as there's nothing actually in play.

Damn, got us there, exploding ships with the power of our mind this whole time.




Shocked the devil has witches for warriors !!!!!
Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#34 - 2016-09-15 01:12:44 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Aren't interested in fighting? Oh mercy, that's a good one!

Again, I prefaced this entire thread with, 'Picking on the defenseless is a core part of EvE, wardecs are a great way to introduce risk to an otherwise riskless part of space.' I still stand by that, and I happen to respect it. Looking at your KB, I can only state you are the one wholly disinterested in anything that resembles a fight. Ganks, sure, but fights? Hub-camping filth-wizardry, all of it. You wouldn't know or want a fight if it came and tapped you on the head, you'd have been docked when said fight was 15 jumps out.


I don't see how my statements about most people wanting to play in their own little corner are funny or any more untrue than your opinions. See all I can do is make assumptions and form an opinion based off of my experiences. I know that one of the issues surrounding wardecs is the ability to evade the war by dropping to an NPC corp for a week or to fold your corp and remake it fresh. These are issues that have more to do with two major issues: the ability to bring a war to a decisive end (which isn't really that big of an issue because even if there were methods, people are mostly uninterested in playing with us) and the fact that theres no real value in staying in a corp and keeping it together.

I appreciate your in-depth sleuthing within my killboard, and you are partially right. I enjoy posessing a higher knowledge of game mechanics and knowing how to use, abuse, and bend them to my will. I also enjoy the amount of isk I make off of the stupidity and laziness of others. That said, I am personally not afraid of a fight and welcome any agressors. I can only say that I play to win and I always try to ensure the odds are in my favor. I consider playing like this to be both smart and effective, especially when I'm apart of a group that advertises effective results and delivers and said promises. I do have other goals and interests that extend beyond highsec, bit Im content where I'm, thanks. That said I've done plenty of risky and involved activities in and out of highsec, so you can take you condescending tone elsewhere.

[quoteAgain. I respect that mode of play if that is your choice. It's a sandbox. I just have no way to bring the fight to you at all.[/quote]

I still dont understand this statement. Is it because your security status is too low? I assuming that you know how to take gates into highsec, but Im just confused as to whats holding you back. There are plenty of opportunities to strike at war decers, you just have to put forth some effort. All you need is some half-decent bait and you'll get a fight. Then you could also try going after our protection contracts and clients. If thats not good enough you could stalk us and wait to strike while were in the middle of bashing a poco, pos, or citadel. There are very distinct differences in mechanics between the different areas of space and thats a good thing. So if you want to hold us on field, you will have to give us a reason to stay and get caught.

Quote:
Woo-hoo, whole billions! Ye gads! I don't want a stationary target, I happen to enjoy the hunt. In fact, the hunt is absolutely one of my favorite parts of the game. You know, a real hunt, chasing down active prey that may be packing a loaded cyno, where both parties may have chips on the table. Not this hilarious seal-clubbing world called high sec where even if they prey wanted to fight back, they have no cynos, they can't command destroyer you off the station, they have no bubbles, and you have no actual assets you can't get safe or neutral logi to safety.

So many mechanics to lean on, so few to offer an actual way to force an end to a war.


I will agree that the potential targets in highsec don't tend to be as risky or full of potential like there is in low and null, but again the mechanics and strategies are different. Its not our faukt that the whales we murder can't light a cyno. That said, theres pment of hunting, stalking, and setting up nice traps and kills... Although the watchlist nerf put a hurt on all styles of hunting in many different areas of space.

I will agree as i adressed earlier that I wouldnt be against having some mechanic to end the war on the defenders terms other than bailing out to NPC corp or reforming the whole corp itself.

I also feel the need to ask yet again... Can you list the mechanics that you referred to that gave agressors an exclusive edge over the defenders? The single most overpowered part about wardecs is that you have a group of people that are most likely very prepared, knowledgable, and organized declaring war on people that are largely ignorant, incompetent, and/or are completely uninterested in fighting back. Thats a fact you can't fault us for... It's like crying because PL is better and bigger than you.

With all this said, I dont mind having to have some kind of structure that is vulnerabke and at risk, but your attitude, knowledge, and approach towards fighting us is very wrong. There are already methods and incentives for gathering your people and coming to highsec to fight, so using citadels as an excuse to do so isn't proper justification. While I would love free wars, I think youre partially wrong about the extreme risk we would be at. Sure a few citadels would probably get destroyed, and thats fine because at nust over 1b they are easily replacable for anyone doing war decs. The 3-stage timer to blow it up will be enough to break your will to destroy them after the first few. Haha not only are they a pain to take down but some groups can afford to plob multiple citadels down and call it a day. Have fun cleaning up 10 of our citadels just to prevent us from declaring war on idiots.

Topics like war decs are important because like you said, it introduces risk to an area of eve that if mostly resistant to risk and interacting with others.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#35 - 2016-09-15 15:46:38 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Not this hilarious seal-clubbing world called high sec where even if they prey wanted to fight back, they have no cynos, they can't command destroyer you off the station, they have no bubbles, and you have no actual assets you can't get safe or neutral logi to safety.

So many mechanics to lean on, so few to offer an actual way to force an end to a war.


Firstly, nobody in highsec has any of those things and the implication you're making is that those things are required for people to be able to fight in any way whatsoever. Which is obviously untrue because if it was the aggressors themselves, also lacking those tools, would also be unable to do anything to the defenders. From a tactical perspective all involved parties are on a completely level playing field.

Secondly you're directly complaining about a lack of specific game mechanics in highsec while also asserting that there are too many mechanics in highsec, it is impossible for both of these things to be true. It's pretty obvious that what you're actually complaining about is not being able to use the crutches you would normally lean on. That being the case why not make a thread suggesting that cynos, capitals, bubbles and command destroyers be allowed in highsec, sine apparently that would allow he defenders in wars to fight back against aggressors?

Also I don't think you know how you think neutral logistics works.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#36 - 2016-09-16 06:37:34 UTC
this idea that you can't fight back against war targets, it's just flawed. Sure there are some really powerful wardec corps out there but most buckle at any show of actual resistance. Here is a war dec we had a few months back. A bunch of our brand new players decided they were done being camped in and started camping the station the war-targets had used for staging. The video is of their third and final attempt to unlock and fight before logging off. we didn't see them the rest of the week
Previous page12