These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardecs Need a Revamp

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#81 - 2016-12-27 12:32:33 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Why do players play? Because it's fun.
Have you not yet realized why Eve is fun? It is not because you can go grind the same missions day in and day out, or mindlessly shoot rocks, but it is because these activities have value and produces items of consequence. No one logs into Eve to stare at a mining laser - they do it because those minerals can be sold or used to build useful things people want. Turning Eve into the carebear paradise you seem to want it to be where nothing is lost without explicit consent would completely undermine the reason for this activities to have meaning. Don't believe me? Go play on the test server for a week in 100% safety and tell me how much fun Eve is.

Geronimo McVain wrote:
What you did was all right for a limited time but prolonged it will end with players leaving. The problem is not the killing etc. but that there is no end. The question remains: would this game be fun if everyone would play it your way?
"Your way"? There is no "your way". There is just the 'Eve way' which is a competetive, full-time PvP sandbox game. Given that most of us are here because we like that idea for a game, why should you get to change it because your selfish carebear desires are incompatible with that core design? Why should we who like this game play which CCP build and has been selling all these years accept you neutering the conflict out of the game because you want to carebear in peace?

Geronimo McVain wrote:
Where would you get the minerals to build your ships? This game is working because it has a niche for many different playstyles but the "downside" is, that you have to put down some limits. If you would trash HS and make low what would happen to the economy? Low sec mining is dead for a reason.
What you are proposing is that everyone plays the robber but whom will you rob then....
Eve would probably be a much better game if most of the minerals came from sectors of space where player competetion can go on more directly than in highsec. CONCORD provides too much safety for the amount of reward still available in the highsec ore and ice belts. This skewed risk:reward balance is why lowsec mining is dead, not that mining in lowsec is not possible. People mine in lowsec, wormholes and increasingly in nullsec all the time, but the fact that so little effort or risk has to be taken on by the miner in highsec makes it by far the best choice for most people to mine. This is a failure of game design encourging content-killing AFK play and multiboxing, not evidence that we need to nerf wardecs further so people can grind ISK even more efficiently. The safety of highsec that enables AFK and multiboxing play hurts miners way more than any wardec ever could by kneecapping the value of their efforts and depressing the mineral market.

Wars, and ongoing wars are an intended feature of the game and are here to stay. CCP will never let real corps avoid the competition that is suppose to exist in this game. If you do not want to compete as an organization, go back to the NPC corp where CCP has thoughtfully provided a safer space (with less reward of course) for players not interested in conflict or competetion to putter around.

On a personal note Geronimo, your views on Eve as a game seem to be improving but Eve University hasn't beat the carebear out of you completely yet. Take some remedial courses - do they have a HTFU 101? - and ask your instructors what Eve as a sandbox means. It is not, as you like to assert, a happy fun land where you can do whatever you want. You are always in conflict with the rest of us in this competetive game where you can lose sometimes, and not just when you are expecting it.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2016-12-27 17:39:06 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Ok apparently I'm the minority here, I just get tired of every corp I join falling apart and all my friends quitting.
If you constantly experience corps promptly falling apart when you join, because its members are leaving; it might be time to consider that the problem may be you.


Perhaps, maybe I have a superpower that causes people to lose interest in the game. Maybe I should start charging for my services.
Iain Cariaba
#83 - 2016-12-27 21:11:18 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Ok apparently I'm the minority here, I just get tired of every corp I join falling apart and all my friends quitting.
If you constantly experience corps promptly falling apart when you join, because its members are leaving; it might be time to consider that the problem may be you.


Perhaps, maybe I have a superpower that causes people to lose interest in the game. Maybe I should start charging for my services.

Or go join goonswarm. You'll fit right in there.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#84 - 2016-12-27 21:52:00 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Ok apparently I'm the minority here, I just get tired of every corp I join falling apart and all my friends quitting.
If you constantly experience corps promptly falling apart when you join, because its members are leaving; it might be time to consider that the problem may be you.


Perhaps, maybe I have a superpower that causes people to lose interest in the game. Maybe I should start charging for my services.

I think your attitude and mindset of what makes eve the game we all love is toxic to new players. Not only does it overly sensitize them to wars, but teaches them that if theu cry hard and frequently enough that CCP should do as they wish. I will put another quarter in and repeat myself as we ride this amusement park ride from hell:

You are not entitled to safety when you undock. You are playing a dark and very interactive sandbox mmo whefe the developers core pricipals align with the majority of us that have voiced opinions and facts in this thread. This isnt World of Warcraft. Sometimes your game experience consists of being at the mercy of other players depending on how you rank in the food chain.

Please,learn from this and just mine in solitude until you get ganked. This is the purpose you serve here, to be someone elses cotent. Harsh, I know but the sooner you realize this you will either HTFU or find another game to play. Eother way you should stop whining here.

HTFU
Kami Lincoln
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2016-12-28 01:40:47 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Ok apparently I'm the minority here, I just get tired of every corp I join falling apart and all my friends quitting.
If you constantly experience corps promptly falling apart when you join, because its members are leaving; it might be time to consider that the problem may be you.


Perhaps, maybe I have a superpower that causes people to lose interest in the game. Maybe I should start charging for my services.

I think your attitude and mindset of what makes eve the game we all love is toxic to new players. Not only does it overly sensitize them to wars, but teaches them that if theu cry hard and frequently enough that CCP should do as they wish. I will put another quarter in and repeat myself as we ride this amusement park ride from hell:

You are not entitled to safety when you undock. You are playing a dark and very interactive sandbox mmo whefe the developers core pricipals align with the majority of us that have voiced opinions and facts in this thread. This isnt World of Warcraft. Sometimes your game experience consists of being at the mercy of other players depending on how you rank in the food chain.

Please,learn from this and just mine in solitude until you get ganked. This is the purpose you serve here, to be someone elses cotent. Harsh, I know but the sooner you realize this you will either HTFU or find another game to play. Eother way you should stop whining here.


Oh boy, I was done with this conversation, but your antagonistic and presumptuous response has prompted me to start from the beginning because I believe you've taken allot of liberties in your assinine assumptions about what kind of player and person I am. I started commenting on this thread because I - like many people believe the high sec war dec system is broken.

I'm not a new player, nor do I only do only Pve related content. I don't have a problem with EVE being a pvp game, with the wardec system in general, high, low or null sec security or the fact you can be ganked anywhere or at any time. Nor do I suggest any significant change that would compromise that. I also don't mine, I've maybe spent 24 hours mining in the last decade.

I have been playing a long time, I've joined mission corps, Indy corps, kitchen sink corps, small pvp corps, WH corps, null sec corps and by far - high sec corps have the highest probability of going bottom up in my experience, with many people actually quitting EVE as opposed to joining a different corp. Or rejoining npc corps to inevitably quit anyway. Some join PVP corps but short of the Alpha influx, those numbers were undoubtably dwarfed by those quitting. These problems in my experience have been almost exclusively from constant wardecs. My current small Indy corporation that is trying to get into pvp has been perpetually at war since October 20th from Vendetta (x3), Marmite at least twice, Ish-Stars and several smaller corps that developed an obsession with us. We've moved farther from Jita, we've stopped going to Jita outside of neutral alts and we've taken our corp ad down. We were able to fight back against several which probably inadvertently led to the wars continuing indefinitely. It's also led to a corp of over 30 active people no longer really logging in despite several of us and our best efforts. Again this is something I've seen many many times, even more so the last couple of years since I've stuck in high and low sec more.

It's irritating for me sure, my buddy list is almost always red, but the problem I'm trying to point out is about newer players. They are getting very bad first impressions of the game without really understanding how the game works. They're sold a line about being whatever they want to be in game, then pressured to join a corp - many times with other new players, only to get rekt by older bored vets.

My latest corp attempted to get other corps who were blanket dec'd into fighting back but most didn't respond, those that did said they didn't have the numbers to even bother. Bad attitude? Sure doesn't help, but eventually this becomes (and already has) a very real problem - I personally don't have a solution. But it would be far more constructive if you could actually offer up solutions to retain the games PVP integrity but also keep new players involved and interested in the game instead of attacking everyone who points out problems with the status quo. Isn't the idea to get more people involved and more people into PVP? That's happening but at an incredibly throttled rate.

If you feel differently, by all means tell me so, but don't belittle my intelligence.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#86 - 2016-12-28 03:24:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Faylee Freir
Kami Lincoln wrote:
Oh boy, I was done with this conversation, but your antagonistic and presumptuous response has prompted me to start from the beginning because I believe you've taken allot of liberties in your assinine assumptions about what kind of player and person I am. I started commenting on this thread because I - like many people believe the high sec war dec system is broken.

I'm not a new player, nor do I only do only Pve related content. I don't have a problem with EVE being a pvp game, with the wardec system in general, high, low or null sec security or the fact you can be ganked anywhere or at any time. Nor do I suggest any significant change that would compromise that. I also don't mine, I've maybe spent 24 hours mining in the last decade.

I have been playing a long time, I've joined mission corps, Indy corps, kitchen sink corps, small pvp corps, WH corps, null sec corps and by far - high sec corps have the highest probability of going bottom up in my experience, with many people actually quitting EVE as opposed to joining a different corp. Or rejoining npc corps to inevitably quit anyway. Some join PVP corps but short of the Alpha influx, those numbers were undoubtably dwarfed by those quitting. These problems in my experience have been almost exclusively from constant wardecs. My current small Indy corporation that is trying to get into pvp has been perpetually at war since October 20th from Vendetta (x3), Marmite at least twice, Ish-Stars and several smaller corps that developed an obsession with us. We've moved farther from Jita, we've stopped going to Jita outside of neutral alts and we've taken our corp ad down. We were able to fight back against several which probably inadvertently led to the wars continuing indefinitely. It's also led to a corp of over 30 active people no longer really logging in despite several of us and our best efforts. Again this is something I've seen many many times, even more so the last couple of years since I've stuck in high and low sec more.

It's irritating for me sure, my buddy list is almost always red, but the problem I'm trying to point out is about newer players. They are getting very bad first impressions of the game without really understanding how the game works. They're sold a line about being whatever they want to be in game, then pressured to join a corp - many times with other new players, only to get rekt by older bored vets.

My latest corp attempted to get other corps who were blanket dec'd into fighting back but most didn't respond, those that did said they didn't have the numbers to even bother. Bad attitude? Sure doesn't help, but eventually this becomes (and already has) a very real problem - I personally don't have a solution. But it would be far more constructive if you could actually offer up solutions to retain the games PVP integrity but also keep new players involved and interested in the game instead of attacking everyone who points out problems with the status quo. Isn't the idea to get more people involved and more people into PVP? That's happening but at an incredibly throttled rate.

If you feel differently, by all means tell me so, but don't belittle my intelligence.

So lets say that CCP put a week or two cooldown timer where you cant have rolling decs, and some of the other things suggessted here... When you do get that week long dec from VMG, how will you react? I assume you will still be here, posting in threads like this because the mean vets are beating up on your pve noobs. What will actually stop the complaining? Where do the changes and nerfs end?

Sure some good balanced changes wouldnt be the worst thing for us, but I know as well as others that it will never be good enough.

HTFU
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2016-12-28 07:33:34 UTC
Faylee Freir wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Again, I'm going to bottom-line this for you one last time. Any changes to the wardec system cannot simply be made just to favour one group or playstyle over another, even if it's to protect people who don't want to PVP, because this is EVE, a PVP game, so if you don't want to PVP, you don't log in. That really is the bottom line. You can deny it, hate it, ignore it, whatever you want, but it is the simple fact of the game that if you choose not to PVP, or learn to PVP, you make yourself a victim. No one else can make that choice for you, mate.

Well, I never heard big complains about the wardec system from attacker side. So it is very likely that it is biased to that side.
Wardec is forcing a playstyle on players that don't want to play that way. This is Eve, so they have to accept it to a certain degree but there should be limits.
My Idea for WD changes would be:
1. decreasing fees: It should be expensive to dec a small/new corp and cheap to dec Goons or PL. Big corps can do something when they care to while small ones might not. The current system makes blanket deccing of small corps cheap and it has the advantage that the chances of someone fighting back are small, because they are small/new, and the members might make more mistakes.
2. doubeling the fees every week. Because the base is much lower you can dec an alliance for much longer then a single small corp.
3. After you dropped the dec there should be a cooldown of 4-6 weeks.

There are cool ideas for structures in space but that would create other problems and be much harder to implement while These changes are quick and cheap.

There are complaints that we (war dec groups) have about certain mechanics and the current system, but we know to keep our mouth shut and be thankful for what we have. Seems like every year the bear menace wins a small victory with some change they champion for.

I will give you a small taste though:

- I wish war costs didnt incentivize corps forming massive alliances to offset the expense of war
- I wish the watchlist wasnt taken away so you see more specialized hunting
- I wish corps werent so easy to fold and re-create when they get a dec
- I wish there was a real incentive for players to not drop corp for the duration of the war
- I wish that corps would take care of their new bros instead of feeding them spoonfulls of helplessness
- I wish for many other things that are best kept secret lest they become abused :)

These are just a few of my complaints, and Im sure others will have a long, much more exhaustive and detailed list.


In short:

1. Many HS players, like the OP, are just Bad™, and I mean really, really Bad™.
2. CCP caters to these really, really Bad™.
3. HS PvP content, as a result, suffers.

Maybe what is needed is a more vociferous response pointing out that...well, this probably does not help with things like PCU.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2016-12-28 08:12:46 UTC
Kami Lincoln wrote:


[snip]

These problems in my experience have been almost exclusively from constant wardecs. My current small Indy corporation that is trying to get into pvp has been perpetually at war since October 20th from Vendetta (x3), Marmite at least twice, Ish-Stars and several smaller corps that developed an obsession with us. We've moved farther from Jita, we've stopped going to Jita outside of neutral alts and we've taken our corp ad down. We were able to fight back against several which probably inadvertently led to the wars continuing indefinitely. It's also led to a corp of over 30 active people no longer really logging in despite several of us and our best efforts. Again this is something I've seen many many times, even more so the last couple of years since I've stuck in high and low sec more.

It's irritating for me sure, my buddy list is almost always red, but the problem I'm trying to point out is about newer players. They are getting very bad first impressions of the game without really understanding how the game works. They're sold a line about being whatever they want to be in game, then pressured to join a corp - many times with other new players, only to get rekt by older bored vets.

My latest corp attempted to get other corps who were blanket dec'd into fighting back but most didn't respond, those that did said they didn't have the numbers to even bother. Bad attitude? Sure doesn't help, but eventually this becomes (and already has) a very real problem - I personally don't have a solution. But it would be far more constructive if you could actually offer up solutions to retain the games PVP integrity but also keep new players involved and interested in the game instead of attacking everyone who points out problems with the status quo. Isn't the idea to get more people involved and more people into PVP? That's happening but at an incredibly throttled rate.

If you feel differently, by all means tell me so, but don't belittle my intelligence.


Here is my problem with this....

First off, any change you make for new players, or in fact, any sub-group of players will, with high probability, be open to abuse.

Consider the OP's suggestion. If I wanted to avoid wardecs and his horrible idea, I'd create and alt, train them just enough to start a corp and give him some seed ISK so that on the first of every month he'd wardec my corp. Then drop that wardec after a week. The next 30 days I'd be 100% certain my corp would not be wardec free. I would have reduced my risk in HS tremendously. It is a completely **** idea.

As for a solution, there may not be one and you can thank CCP. Their changes have lead to larger wardec alliances. Granted it was not just CCP, but their changes, at the behest of special interest groups no less, made the situation worse. The removal of the watchlist made mass wardeccing more popular by reducing the viability of targeted wardecs.

Undoing these changes probably won't solve the problem. Most likely solution maybe from the players themselves and may take time to emerge. Trying for force a top down solution probably will blow up in your and CCP's face. You'd think that the people who created a game based on spontaneous order and emergence would realize that imposing top down changes can have unintended consequences and lead to results one does not expect.

Part of the problem is human hubris in thinking that a small number of people (usually "experts") can do better than hundreds even thousands of players. We are playing a game with each other and with CCP...and CCP has one advantage they can impose changes that none of us can directly stop. The players on the other hand have an advantage of numbers...massive numbers in looking at how to use those changes to their own advantage....and it always happens. Always. Look at what happened to their attempts to monkey with the FW LP and CCP had their asses handed to them by 5 players who showed them just how little they knew about their own game. Those 5 players managed to rack up 5 trillion ISK (at least) by noting a glaring hole in CCP's design for FW LP.

Do I have a solution? No, I don't. And to be quite honest, I don't think anyone else does either. And maybe we should stop looking to Mommy CCP to fix these problems and let the players do it when it involves player-on-player interaction. CCP should consider stop telling players they are not sandboxing correctly the vast majority of the time....especially when the beneficiaries are a subset of the player population.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2016-12-28 09:06:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Teckos Pech wrote:
In short:

1. Many HS players, like the OP, are just Bad™, and I mean really, really Bad™.
2. CCP caters to these really, really Bad™.
3. HS PvP content, as a result, suffers.

Maybe what is needed is a more vociferous response pointing out that...well, this probably does not help with things like PCU.

4. These Bad players pay for the servers!
5. A lot of the L33T players have alts in HS for various reasons like industry, WHY?
6. low sec mining is dead for a reason.
7. Why do people hunt in HS, complain that nobody wants to fight them while low/Null are just 5 jumps away where you are very likely to find someone willing?

If you take a look at the L33T player population in low or Null you can ask yourself if these L33T players are enough to pay for the development and the servers.

And as the OP stated: you are simply overdoing it while just looking from your position. One week in Hell is okay endless weeks in hell will make people shut down corp or quit. The problem is to take a look at the other side and think how you would react. Lets assume someone can force you to outmine them each day or your weapon damage will be halfed. May be even fun for a week but what would you do if you are facing it for weeks or month? I would quit corp or game if it happens often.

Just accept the fact that some people really don't want to fight. They have to endure a week in Hell, nothing wrong there, but if they see no end they will either quit or shut down. And what do YOU get from a prolonged wardecc? No targets because they quit or shut down but you still need to pay. So in the end EVERYBODY loses. Except when you count people quitting Eve an success.

These people pay for the server you want to fight on. They mine the minerals for your ships that you are not willing to spend your gametime on. Limiting wardecs serves everyone because there are more targets for you and they get fun in the game with some hell weeks.
I don't want to mine for my ships so I accept the fact that I if have to respect the guys and girls that like to play Eve their way.

For people to play on the game has to be fun. There are thousands of players that like to fight but you insist on picking on those that don't. If the game isn't fun for them, they quit. Hunt me, when I'm exploring in Null, hunt each other for the fun. But that will not get you so many targets and will result in a less green killboard. If carebears quit CCP gets less money which slows down development at best. So tell me what do you get out of it??? I just can't see it.
rahmat mirko
Wolf Pack Aquisition and Consulting
#90 - 2016-12-28 09:44:38 UTC
For those of you making reference to the corp I was in at the time I posted. I have no authority to speak for anyone else, and am in an NPC corp now. To those who keep posting HTFU, you have some valid points. This post was not about me. I am a PvPer and need no one to defend me. I just think what I was purposing would be of very little inconvenience to those that want to fight. So mutual wardecs would be unaffected. And the wardec corps that keep decing carebear corps would not have much of a problem. They can just keep decing different corps every week with little or no extra fuss. My suggestion would just give the carebears more of a change to develop. I really have had a lot of fun reading these replies. Also for the record, I have no hard feelings toward any one.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2016-12-28 10:05:00 UTC
rahmat mirko wrote:
For those of you making reference to the corp I was in at the time I posted. I have no authority to speak for anyone else, and am in an NPC corp now. To those who keep posting HTFU, you have some valid points. This post was not about me. I am a PvPer and need no one to defend me. I just think what I was purposing would be of very little inconvenience to those that want to fight. So mutual wardecs would be unaffected. And the wardec corps that keep decing carebear corps would not have much of a problem. They can just keep decing different corps every week with little or no extra fuss. My suggestion would just give the carebears more of a change to develop. I really have had a lot of fun reading these replies. Also for the record, I have no hard feelings toward any one.

As tackos pointed out a universal cooldown is an invitation for exploits with alt corps. To make deccing small corps for a long time unattractive it has to be so expensive that it's just not worth it while people willing to spend the money can do so if they really want to keep the wardecc up.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2016-12-28 10:13:35 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:


[snip]



You should read my second post as to why your viewpoint is just wrong.

If players do not want to engage in combat that is fine, but combat is a fundamental part of this game and it is supposed to be a sandbox. As such, if you really want to avoid combat that means you are putting limits on what you can do in game with that choice.

Further, trying to change the mechanics to accommodate such players means that you create a substantial potential for abuse as i outlined in my second post. The OPs idea, for an example, means that I can create a faux wardec corp and use it to ensure my corp is wardec free fro 30 days. That is not going to "solve the problem" but create a new one. One where wardec corps and alliances would likely become a thing of the past or with alot less content and those players might in turn stop "paying for the servers" too.

And PvP should be in all areas of the game, LS, NS, WH, and yes even HS. There should be no PvP free zones, and that includes combat. CCP has been moving in the direction of reducing HS PvP and look...PCU has been going down.

And you seem to not understand the concept of mass wardecs. The idea of only "picking on those who want to fight" is not what mass wardeccing is about. It is about having alot of wardecs to have alot of targets of opportunity...whether they can fight or not. One reason for this increase in mass wardecs are the very changes CCP has made.

Your real beef is with CCP. And unfortunately for you, undoing those changes...probably won't fix the problem.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#93 - 2016-12-28 10:19:01 UTC
rahmat mirko wrote:
For those of you making reference to the corp I was in at the time I posted. I have no authority to speak for anyone else, and am in an NPC corp now. To those who keep posting HTFU, you have some valid points. This post was not about me. I am a PvPer and need no one to defend me. I just think what I was purposing would be of very little inconvenience to those that want to fight. So mutual wardecs would be unaffected. And the wardec corps that keep decing carebear corps would not have much of a problem. They can just keep decing different corps every week with little or no extra fuss. My suggestion would just give the carebears more of a change to develop. I really have had a lot of fun reading these replies. Also for the record, I have no hard feelings toward any one.


What you proposed was just bad....it can obviously and easily be abused....and ironically it will almost surely be abused more the non-carebears than the carebears.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Iain Cariaba
#94 - 2016-12-28 10:19:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
...probably won't fix the problem.

No, I think it will. I think many of the newer members in those corps after the watchlist change did so because those were the only places they could get enough targets. If you made watchlisting viable again, they'd quickly splinter off into smaller groups and solos again.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2016-12-28 11:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Teckos Pech wrote:
If players do not want to engage in combat that is fine, but combat is a fundamental part of this game and it is supposed to be a sandbox. As such, if you really want to avoid combat that means you are putting limits on what you can do in game with that choice.

That's fine, I have no problems with it. It's just that you have problems with the consequences in HS: Concord and status loss. Wardeccs do nothing towards combat but shelter the attacker from the mechanics of HS. If you don't like the mechnics you can go to low/Null as a carbear can avoid low/null.

Teckos Pech wrote:
One where wardec corps and alliances would likely become a thing of the past or with alot less content and those players might in turn stop "paying for the servers" too.

And PvP should be in all areas of the game, LS, NS, WH, and yes even HS. There should be no PvP free zones, and that includes combat. CCP has been moving in the direction of reducing HS PvP and look...PCU has been going down.

And you seem to not understand the concept of mass wardecs. The idea of only "picking on those who want to fight" is not what mass wardeccing is about. It is about having alot of wardecs to have alot of targets of opportunity...whether they can fight or not.
So you count killing an astroid PvP? If they don't fight it just boosts you killboard but gives you no challenge and is frustrating to the defenders. Tell me who is winning in this scenario? And if you had read my post, you would know that I don't want to stop wardeccs but to focus it on the big corps, which can retaliate if they wish to, while making it harder to target small ones for a longer time who might miss the will/number/ability to do so.
Where do you have a problem with corps switching targets after a week? You pointed out that it is irrelevant which corp you decc so where is the problem in forcing you to switch after a week?
Mass wardeccs as you describe them are not for fighting but for farming other players and I really don't see what's the benefit on farming the same corp for weeks till they falter and why CCP should protect this behavior.

1.If you are out for framing other players mass wardeccs make sense but have really nothing to do with actual fighting but it's another form of ISK grinding
2. or you are out for real fighting then mass deccing corps that don't want to fight is a waste of money.
Please choose
Jenny Hedone
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2016-12-28 13:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenny Hedone
Oh deer

Well, tbh, I don't think both sides in this confilct are going to go anywhere and that's more than sad. Instead of constructive criticism, I've had to read through lots of personal attacks and disrespect and this is sad, really.
https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/forum-moderation-policy-en/

However, what I think is the problem is the following:

Wardec corps and alliances can simply escape from any engagements they cannot counter if they choose to and do so by docking up and making themselves invulnerable to hostile attacks. That's what I think is the problem in this case.

I'm not talking of the effects on any players because that's legit in my opinion. If you're out of a NPC corp, you're free to be declared war upon and have to face the consequences.
But what we currently have is not a war: It's a game of hide-and-seek that revolves around the defenders always sitting on NPC stations or switching corps.

The solution I would suggest is the following: If you're declared war upon or declare war towards any other corporation, NPC stations won't let you dock unless the war is over. To support my suggestion, neuts helping a attacker/defender in a combat situation will get flagged as suspect and from this I deduce that helping either one side or the other as a neut is considered as a suspective activity, so why should NPCs want to a) participate by granting protection to one of the contrahents and b) perform suspective actions by doing so?

In addition, in order to found a Corporation, you need a home you call your own. Losing your home will lead to the closure of your corp within x time during which you have to build a new home for your corporation.
But this isn't everything: What about surrendering?
Taken the enemy is knocking onto my door, they could offer me to surrender but at a cost, which will most likely be close to the value of the citadel.
We could also, in addition, prohibit the shifting of defender-assets from a citadel to any NPC station and make the contents drop like normal loot with the same percentages as a normal ship would do on destruction.

Upsides:
- People who want HS PVP will get it
- People who want to evade a war can surrender
- The economy in EvE would experience a (at least temporary) rising demand for citadels since newly founded corps would require a citadel and existing ones would eventually get blown up
- Corporations and alliances can now be defeated

Downsides:
- Neut-interactions would be a significant problem since they would be able to supply affected sides
-> Disable any interactions with neuts during wartime, including, but not limited to,:
- Citadel trade and delivery system
- Contracts
- Picking up items from foreign cargo (including jetcans and ship maintenance hangar)
- Entering a out-of-corp-ship
- NS mega alliances could use a dummy alliance or corp to prevent other alliances from trading and keep the dummy citadel
safe within their own territory
-> Let the Neut-interactions be ES (Empire space) specific, allow NS/WS with sov to do what they want within their systems,
this follows the principle that the universe is player-driven

- AFK Cloaking™ could be a problem, however this wouldn't be of much use since a dead citadel is probably a bigger loss than the own ship

- Founding a corporation would be significantly harder and more expensive
-> This however could lead to larger corporations and more profits that could be generated by running a decent corp


Those are some drastic changes and if you're thinking they're not completely thought out, then let me assure you that we're thinking the same, however that's what this sub-forum is meant for, right? Ironing out ideas and sharing opinions.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#97 - 2016-12-28 19:02:37 UTC
Jenny Hedone wrote:
Wardec corps and alliances can simply escape from any engagements they cannot counter if they choose to and do so by docking up and making themselves invulnerable to hostile attacks. That's what I think is the problem in this case.

So it's almost like... hang in here with me. Living in lowsec, nullsec, or in a wormhole? Like there's this place and you call it your home or staging system (whatever term you want to use). So like you should definitely be strongest around your staging and stuff ya! So the cool thing about highsec compared to most of nullsec is that anyone can dock in these stations when the heat gets turned up! How neat is that!?

Sounds like your idea is to have a button or mechanic to kick someone out of a station that they are hiding in. I think most mercs would agree with your idea and +1 you on that. Good thinkin' kid.

Quote:
I'm not talking of the effects on any players because that's legit in my opinion. If you're out of a NPC corp, you're free to be declared war upon and have to face the consequences.
But what we currently have is not a war: It's a game of hide-and-seek that revolves around the defenders always sitting on NPC stations or switching corps.

I'm not going to be blatantly greedy enough to say that I wish that all my war targets would remain clear and easy targets for the entire duration of the war... without some balancing. The fact is that all of these players that flock to the support page, to reddit, and to these... funny forums for one reason only and that's to just complain. To complain that live in New Eden is not fair, and that if the evil wardec griefer noobs had one more nerf, then maybe things would be better. Maybe, just maybe they could mine, run missions, and haul goods without having to worry about no life basement dwellers. So here we are at an obvious standstill because we all know that it's never just "one more nerf". So you guys are going to have to HTFU.

Quote:
The solution I would suggest is the following: If you're declared war upon or declare war towards any other corporation, NPC stations won't let you dock unless the war is over. To support my suggestion, neuts helping a attacker/defender in a combat situation will get flagged as suspect and from this I deduce that helping either one side or the other as a neut is considered as a suspective activity, so why should NPCs want to a) participate by granting protection to one of the contrahents and b) perform suspective actions by doing so?

With the exception of Citadels, players under a war dec won't be able to dock up with their goods to sell, trade, and etc... So if this were the case a group like... say VMG would clear every citadel within X number of jumps from Jita and that would force everyone to either use neutral haulers or drop to an NPC corp.

Quote:
In addition, in order to found a Corporation, you need a home you call your own. Losing your home will lead to the closure of your corp within x time during which you have to build a new home for your corporation.
But this isn't everything: What about surrendering?
Taken the enemy is knocking onto my door, they could offer me to surrender but at a cost, which will most likely be close to the value of the citadel.
We could also, in addition, prohibit the shifting of defender-assets from a citadel to any NPC station and make the contents drop like normal loot with the same percentages as a normal ship would do on destruction.

I don't see CCP changing the asset safety mechanics at all. Think of all the precious bears that will lose everything!

I admit that just about everytime I come onto these forums or onto Reddit *shudder* that I immediately get filled with rage. I understand balance, I really do. I know I've done a lot of trolling, mocking, name calling, and just being a general ****... but I do understand balance. The problem I have with threads like these is that it's not really about having a two-sided discussion. It's a list of complaints with an even longer (and very terrible) list of ideas on how CCP can "fix" wardecs. People that share the idea that wardecs are evil and centered around grief (lol) flock here to **** into an echo chamber of bad ideas. Then you get CCP reading something like and saying, "hm, maybe we actually should disable docking while you're at war".

My biggest weakness here is that I've never been a victim. I've never seen myself as someone that would get abused and taken advantage for. Sure there's 95% of the playerbase that is probably better at the game than I am, but I'm not weak. I'm not a victim. So I don't know what it feels like to want to run missions, but be scared because of "griefers".

HTFU
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#98 - 2016-12-28 19:41:08 UTC
Jenny Hedone wrote:
Wardec corps and alliances can simply escape from any engagements they cannot counter if they choose to and do so by docking up and making themselves invulnerable to hostile attacks

literally every single corporation and alliance in eve can do this.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2016-12-28 20:09:42 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
If players do not want to engage in combat that is fine, but combat is a fundamental part of this game and it is supposed to be a sandbox. As such, if you really want to avoid combat that means you are putting limits on what you can do in game with that choice.

That's fine, I have no problems with it. It's just that you have problems with the consequences in HS: Concord and status loss. Wardeccs do nothing towards combat but shelter the attacker from the mechanics of HS. If you don't like the mechnics you can go to low/Null as a carbear can avoid low/null.

Teckos Pech wrote:
One where wardec corps and alliances would likely become a thing of the past or with alot less content and those players might in turn stop "paying for the servers" too.

And PvP should be in all areas of the game, LS, NS, WH, and yes even HS. There should be no PvP free zones, and that includes combat. CCP has been moving in the direction of reducing HS PvP and look...PCU has been going down.

And you seem to not understand the concept of mass wardecs. The idea of only "picking on those who want to fight" is not what mass wardeccing is about. It is about having alot of wardecs to have alot of targets of opportunity...whether they can fight or not.
So you count killing an astroid PvP? If they don't fight it just boosts you killboard but gives you no challenge and is frustrating to the defenders. Tell me who is winning in this scenario? And if you had read my post, you would know that I don't want to stop wardeccs but to focus it on the big corps, which can retaliate if they wish to, while making it harder to target small ones for a longer time who might miss the will/number/ability to do so.
Where do you have a problem with corps switching targets after a week? You pointed out that it is irrelevant which corp you decc so where is the problem in forcing you to switch after a week?
Mass wardeccs as you describe them are not for fighting but for farming other players and I really don't see what's the benefit on farming the same corp for weeks till they falter and why CCP should protect this behavior.

1.If you are out for framing other players mass wardeccs make sense but have really nothing to do with actual fighting but it's another form of ISK grinding
2. or you are out for real fighting then mass deccing corps that don't want to fight is a waste of money.
Please choose


Please think through your ideas a bit before posting them. Think, "How could I abuse this mechanic?" and "What might be the consequences of this mechanic?"

For example, if I wanted to avoid wardecs and run logistics operations for a NS alliance I'd do it by having OOA corporations with a size limit and create as many as I needed. There, now my HS logistics side is wardec proof and I get the benefits of that come with having player run corporations vs. having everyone scattered through a bunch of NPC corps without things like corp hangars. Were you intending to help this group of long time and experienced and rich players with this gift?

If I were interested in a HS industry corp and my members did not want to fight, I'd see this change (wardecs tied to corp size) as pretty much a hard barrier on corp membership. Once we hit that limit that's it no new members. Current member brings a buddy into game...sorry, he can't join we'd get wardecced and since we aren't going to fight, nope he'll have to find another corporation. Were you intending this effect?

And lastly put the moral high horse away. What people want to do in game is none of your business, and generally not any of CCP's business (unless the players are breaking the very short list of rules CCP has set forth). That is your last enumerated points are irrelevant. "Farming" other players is irrelevant. This is a sandbox, do what you will so long as it conforms the limited list of rules CCP has set down.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2016-12-28 20:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jenny Hedone wrote:


The solution I would suggest is the following: If you're declared war upon or declare war towards any other corporation, NPC stations won't let you dock unless the war is over.


Okay, so here I am, the guy in an industrial corporation and we get that eve mail saying hostilities start in 24 hours. What will be the likely effect of this change?

Everyone but the corp executor alt drop back into NPC corporations? Everyone just logs off for a week after docking in an NPC station or logging in space at a safe spot? Dissolve the corporation and make do with life in an NPC corp from here on out?

I think Malcanis made a very good point here.

Quote:
Well once again, I will point to my thought of the War Bond to illustrate the core problem. For this experiment, we will need to postulate that there is a mechanic to define "winning" a war; you cantake your pick, or even imagine that there are multiple ways (eg K:D, structures surviving/being destroyed, activity, whatever.)

Suppose that on the formation of a corporation or alliance, in addition to the normal registration fee, CONCORD requested that the CEO deposit a war bond of equal or greater size. A bond which can be increased later at any time.

Should any other entity wish to declare war against that corp or alliance, they will have to match the war bond held on deposit. The winner of the war is awarded the loser's bond.

This would give the defending entity an element of choice in the kind of conflict they wish to engage in: if the bond of Malc's Minimal Tax Mission corp is 5M ISK, that may send a message that I don't care about the corp at all; if wardecced, I will just abandon it and form another. (On the other hand, it might also communicate that I'd love to have a wardec because MMTX are also bored and welcome fights.) In essence, anyone with a ship to undock 5,000,000 ISK to risk can try their chances, but they should not have high expectations of the campaign.

On the other hand, let's say that Malcanis's Massive Industrial Machine (MMID) puts up a 500B bond. Anyone looking at that bond will realise that they have to put up half a trillion ISK to have a go. They might well infer that MMID has very sustantial assets in hisec that they want to protect, and in any case, there is a very large prize to be gained for winning a war with them. If MMID can afford a bond of that size, they can presumably afford to pay defenders, and might well have srsbsns allies. In short, any war declared on MMID will be almost certainly be a serious effort by a group willing to play for large stakes, who will expect to get one or more significant fights out of the campaign.


And a subsequent follow up post here.

Part of that post,

Quote:
The experiment therefore illustrates the motivations behind both sides. in general, hi-sec war deccers are in it for low commitment, easy kill farming, with any profit being something of a bonus. So a system that requires them to commit ISK and which also allows the defender any agency in determining the terms of conflict is not popular with them.

Likewise, the defenders in general don't want non-consensual PvP at all, and they want CCP to just stop it (see the post directly after the one I made above, for example.) So to them, the war-bond is a regressive step that they see as one more way of putting the responsibility for defending their ships and assets on them, rather than on CONCORD.

In short, the issue with war-decs is that they are non-consensual PvP in a way that, for example, a war between two 0.0 alliances isn't. The 0.0 guys may complain about blobs or coalitions or cloaky camping or whatever, but that's just tactics. They're not complaining about the concept of another entity shooting at them at all. Wardecs on the other hand, typically involve a defender who doesn't want to engage in combat PvP at all. How can you reconcile that desire with the desire for other players to play a FFA PvP game? The War Bond addresses the fig-leaf justifications that both sides put up. Deccers constantly complain that defenders can just quite their corps and reform another, risking nothing and losing nothing but a name. Defenders complain that they have no way to use their playstyle to protect themselves, and that the wardeccers commit nothing and take no real risks.

And yet when offered a mechanism that addresses these complaints, neither of them like it. In true EVE style, each want the other to do all the adapting.


IMO, almost all "Fix War Decs by...." threads are nothing more than special interest group lobbying efforts. Yes, yes, they are always couched in terms of "...it will be good for the game..." but that is just rubbish rhetoric. Nobody is going to come into the forums and say, "I know this is just going to benefit my style of play so please make these changes."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online