These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New War Dec system - massively article - Very good points covered.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rimase
#121 - 2012-04-17 12:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
Quite an interesting read though I thoroughly dislike a report of an article appearing on a popular gaming website. Feels kinda biased, no?



A war must escalate. What happens now is there's is no escalation for preparation for the worse to happen (no preparation of military supplies and military strategy). There has to be prelude! But how?..

First, consider these two things:
  1. Corporations are business wars.
  2. Faction and Alliances are sovereignty wars.

Second, consider this simple common-ground:
  • Both types of wars can escalate to gun battles
  • Sovereignty wars are inherently gun battles.


What's the type of war that's going to happen?
In business there's going to be market strategies against your enemy,
there's going to be blockades (stopping industry),
there's going to be targeted piracy (looting others without harm),
and there's going to be first-stage intimidation.

CORPORATE BUSINESS WARS:
(step-1): Win conditions of 'Business Wars'.

... in ESCALATION
(step-2): any party submitting to using guns become the responsible war-party against the other,
(step-3): this destructive act is logged and is either wilfully confirmed official or consequently denied as a mistake
(step-4a): no response of the action gives full 'moral power' to the victim party (a set of advantage options).
(step-4b): constant denials would lead to all-out explosive war! (victim will not be responsible for escalating to gun-blazing).
(step-4c): a single confirmed official act of war leads to all-out war!
(step-5a): If no alliance: Additional win conditions to 'Business War'. Optionally involves alliance if any.
A long stretch of war ensues, or...
(step-5b): If alliance: Escalates to a sovereign alliance war!

ALLIANCE/FACTION SOVEREIGN WARS:
(step-5b): Win conditions of 'Sovereignty Wars'.
(step-5+): Player-Alliances only: A set of formal agreements are available to all parties (optional). Prompt with enemy, win conditions are manipulated through social interaction.
A long stretch of war ensues...

... in ENDING
(step-x): War ends in one of few ways: Mutual (agreed), Surrender (tithe), Conditions met (victory!), other...


Highlighting the 'carebear'
In the first phase of an escalating war is all-so very subtle and gives power to others. These others are not necessarily gun-fighting players. 'Carebears' become responsible in preventing first stages of war! Holy crap! Knowledgable traders, manufacturers and so-on become an awesome necessity!

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-04-17 12:45:41 UTC
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

YuuKnow
The Scope
#123 - 2012-04-17 12:54:26 UTC
The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.

yk
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#124 - 2012-04-17 12:57:13 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.

yk


Your knowledge of EVE history and design is about as good(bad) as they article's author knowledge about wardecs.
Matrix Operator
#125 - 2012-04-17 12:57:18 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.


How about a collateral system for the aggressor so that they have something to loose. The aggressor could face some sort of plenalty or loss if they don't get the dec'd corp to surrender in the week the dec is active. The aggressor has the choice then of continuing the war, so facing loss of the collateral.

The collateral can be something like loss of docking rights in the dec corps systems or forfeited offices for 1 month. Other possibilities include forfeiteed PCCOs, POSs. Or a percentage of the aggessors wallet isk if deleted for loosing the war or something along those lines.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#126 - 2012-04-17 13:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.

yk


Your knowledge of EVE history and design is about as good(bad) as they article's author knowledge about wardecs.


My knowledge of Eve history and design stretches back to release! http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=11087&page=1#1

Probably before you could drive or vote.

yk
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#127 - 2012-04-17 13:11:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Wars will never be "fair", because wars aren't declared for fair fights, they're declared because the aggressor thinks they can win or have something to gain.


And thanks to CCP, in EVE they can't lose in any way. They don't even need to play, actually; just need to pose a threat.

In that sense, griefer wardeccers are more akin to terrorists than to military, and CCP is the rogue state that harbors a little bunch of punks who terroryze non-PvP hisec corporations.

Just you can't go and shoot their head and throw their body into sea... Roll
Rimase
#128 - 2012-04-17 13:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
Matrix Operator wrote:
How about a collateral system for the aggressor so that they have something to loose.


Definitely some collateral consequence for aggressor. During war and in defeat.
Concord has no jurisdiction in null sec but they do in low sec and high sec. The new War Reports could be handed-in to Concord's DED office, which then hits the aggressors hard and the involved parties. An additional very sophisticated war strategy involving moral consequences or support.

___________________________________

War Report: Null Security systems are not monitored by Concord. The new War Report will allow Concord to know what's going on and apply those actions into their systems of security. The other party can cleverly nullify their impending consequences. War Reports are manual monitorings of player-corporations in Null Sec and are voluntary submissions to Concord. The results of this can be positive or negative for you, or a balance of nothing.

The corporation with good Concord standing will be prioritized.
The corporation with bad Concord standing will be treated fairly.

- The victim-corporation submitting the War Report may be graced by Concord (no change of protection in low-sec & high-sec protection).
- The aggressor-corporation submitting the War Report may be withheld by Concord until other party's submit (Concord waits for other party to submit war report).
...... the aggressor-corporation may be justifiably denied sanction within their sovereign-systems and treated as criminal Suspects protection within all low-sec and high-sec (incorporating new Crimewatch changes).
- Concord may review both party's War Reports, investigate (additional war-escalation time) and decide not to get involved in their silly little matters.

Purpose of this:
Deters the aggressors out of concord's jurisdiction until they show remorse! A great war advantage for the victims receiving supplies from high sec, etc!
___________________________________



Bit far-fetched but that's an idea for controlling immoral behaviours nonetheless.
Still, the immediacy of war is particularly frowned upon by me. There has to be awareness of a step-by-step controlled escalation to a gun-blazing all-out war!

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#129 - 2012-04-17 13:55:29 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.

You could always, you know, declare the war mutual. Then ransom the aggressor to end the war, or force them to disband their corporation.

YuuKnow wrote:
The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.

yk

This, pretty much, although I see it from a different perspective. I'd argue that CCP's problems with high sec aren't due to introducing griefer tactics.

I think the issue was that they inadvertently created PvE and PvP zones, realized no one was leaving the comfort of the PvE zone, and war declarations were introduced as a fix to that issue. War decs were the solution, not the problem, they just haven't been perfected yet.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#130 - 2012-04-17 14:07:42 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.

You could always, you know, declare the war mutual. Then ransom the aggressor to end the war, or force them to disband their corporation.


If the aggressors lose and they have to disband the corp they have to pay all of 1.6M to re-create a new one. It's not a massive amount...

Is this a loss? Are you going to ransom them all of 1.6M (beyond that, they just re-create the corp)?

In the mean time, did they manage to disrupt your 300M a day operation? Yes. See where the tiny asymmetry is?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#131 - 2012-04-17 14:12:08 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If the aggressors lose and they have to disband the corp they have to pay all of 1.6M to re-create a new one. It's not a massive amount...

And you just forced them to end the dec, scrub their current kill board history and begin yet another brand new corporation. That kind of reputation tends to follow people around, and it's not unknown for corps to fall apart due to war decs and being forced to disband and reform.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Is this a loss? Are you going to ransom them all of 1.6M (beyond that, they just re-create the corp)?

In the mean time, did they manage to disrupt your 300M a day operation? Yes. See where the tiny asymmetry is?

Lol, 300m a day operation.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Rekon X
Doomheim
#132 - 2012-04-17 14:16:11 UTC
Dead faction warfare system. Well, ummm,

Don't trash faction for joining. Simple as that.

I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2012-04-17 14:17:51 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone.
No. CCP originally wanted a PvP zone, which, due to excess, they had to split into a completely free PvP zone and a pay-for PvP zone. Since then, they've simply been fiddling around with the pay scale and pricing mechanics for that pay-for PvP.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
You could always, you know, declare the war mutual. Then ransom the aggressor to end the war, or force them to disband their corporation.
…but that's just it: with the proposed implementation, that option is largely removed. They only really retain the mutuality declaration to allow RvB to exist — not as a revenge mechanic against overconfident wardeccers.
Rekon X
Doomheim
#134 - 2012-04-17 14:40:53 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.


It seems to be a game for griefers.

If I was an industrialist and the corp was war deced, I'd simply just close my account and move on.

If that is what CCP wants out of this game, then it's there wallet. They can keep the greifers they cater to.

I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all.
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-04-17 15:02:09 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.


At most they're out money... after that if things dont go well... Well they can move knowing that most non pvp focused corps aren't going to pursue them.

Really goals/objectives need to be set which make people wish to fight. People are right they should have some fun element to them. Mostly the fun goes to the aggressor.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#136 - 2012-04-17 15:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If the aggressors lose and they have to disband the corp they have to pay all of 1.6M to re-create a new one. It's not a massive amount...

And you just forced them to end the dec, scrub their current kill board history and begin yet another brand new corporation. That kind of reputation tends to follow people around, and it's not unknown for corps to fall apart due to war decs and being forced to disband and reform.


Killboard is an out of game feature that is mostly watched by other PvPers for e-peen slapping. You can see in this very thread an example of joining and leaving a corp dozens of times, this is how important will be to stay in same corp or disband it.
Also, killboards can be managed to be retained across corporations since it's just a website, a visitor won't see what went behind it.


Simi Kusoni wrote:

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Is this a loss? Are you going to ransom them all of 1.6M (beyond that, they just re-create the corp)?

In the mean time, did they manage to disrupt your 300M a day operation? Yes. See where the tiny asymmetry is?

Lol, 300m a day operation.


A small indy corp won't pull much more than that. It's why attackers ask for 500M to 2B ransoms and not 2 trillions.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#137 - 2012-04-17 15:11:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Rekon X wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:
As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.

It seems to be a game for griefers.

If I was an industrialist and the corp was war deced, I'd simply just close my account and move on.

If that is what CCP wants out of this game, then it's there wallet. They can keep the greifers they cater to.

...said the alt in the NPC corp.

It is there you should stay. The fact is anyone can have a corp right now and that makes it meaningless. When there is no risk and everything is put in term of "grind" the game looses all value. Why not build an empire in Maya or some 3D modeling software rather than play eve? EvE is easy if you never have to play against another player... and you can do that. nobody can wardec you and you can continue to mull about in empire without risk doing whatever repetitive tasks you seem to enjoy filling your day with.That's fine... no one is taking that away from you. The fact that a corp has to defend itself and it's in-space assets are exactly what gives corporations value! I mean why are you even playing an MMO? Why not play something where nobody ever bothers you if you are so afraid of what other people might do?

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
A small indy corp won't pull much more than that. It's why attackers ask for 500M to 2B ransoms and not 2 trillions.

YOUR small indy corp. A decent one should make a bil or two a day. Of course... you would have to leave jita. LOL! tool.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#138 - 2012-04-17 15:19:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Gogela wrote:

It is there you should stay. The fact is anyone can have a corp right now and that makes it meaningless. When there is no risk and everything is put in term of "grind" the game looses all value. Why not build an empire in Maya or some 3D modeling software rather than play eve? EvE is easy if you never have to play against another player... and you can do that. nobody can wardec you and you can continue to mull about in empire without risk doing whatever repetitive tasks you seem to enjoy filling your day with.That's fine... no one is taking that away from you. The fact that a corp has to defend itself and it's in-space assets are exactly what gives corporations value! I mean why are you even playing an MMO? Why not play something where nobody ever bothers you if you are so afraid of what other people might do?


You assume that a sandbox is forcibly a predator => prey sandbox and not a social game.
You assume that everybody want spaceships PvP while many prefer industry competition and market PvP or just like to FLY spaceships and that's it.
You assume that a MMO or even a PvP MMO is about killing each other, while the majority of all MMOs are not of this mindset, even in PvP MMOs.
You assume your way is the only way or the highway.

If people shared your near sighted beliefs, then they'd all play a FPS or Mortal Kombat. Instant action, no dead time.


Gogela wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
A small indy corp won't pull much more than that. It's why attackers ask for 500M to 2B ransoms and not 2 trillions.

YOUR small indy corp. A decent one should make a bil or two a day. Of course... you would have to leave jita. LOL! tool.


I don't have an indy corp, I only know people who are in one.
You are GROSSLY illusional if you believe all indy corps are 10 men each pulling 100M net profit a day. Most have 3-5 guys online tops and they play 3-4 hours not 23. Maybe you refer to bot corps but those are not EULA compliant.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#139 - 2012-04-17 15:22:59 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
illusional

You keep using that word.... I do not think it means what you think it means...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#140 - 2012-04-17 15:24:05 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.

yk


What CCP wants matters **** all. The customers pay for the game. The players WANTED it like this.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it