Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Commander Spurty
1670
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 13:30:22 -
[1] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/wars/ I'll offer you this data for the bassis of the following statement:
War decs are failing to achieve objectives of a war.
If you could tweak war dec mechanics (be bold, all options are on the table), what would you tweak?
P.S. if you are unaware of the *point of a war,* I still want to hear what you think. It might offer insight as to why the malaise continues.
My offering: winner of the war receives 1% war loot from the tax of all activities the entity beaten takes after the war ends. If this entity is war dec by another entity, the 1% money goes to the last war dec to win.
There are good ships,
And wood ships,
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
489
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 13:33:41 -
[2] - Quote
Objective of wars is to supplant your competition by getting concord to ignore your aggression so you can destroy their stuff. And a few other fringe uses. Working as intended. |
hmu-smh
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 13:34:38 -
[3] - Quote
I'd create a way to know exactly what system ALL your targets are located, with 15 minute delay. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1305
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 13:38:47 -
[4] - Quote
You will never fix nor balance war decs. Simply put it is in the same class as all ganks or most combat wishes to be: if you find yourself in an even fight you did something wrong already.
Because of this nature almost all aggression, even throughout history, is someone veritably picking on another who they perceive is weaker. Some is the nature of fight or die. But most is wars or aggression of opportunity due to perceived power imbalances. Because of this war decs are in the correct state as any changes to actual hard limit mechanics will put the advantage always with one side or another when in real life it is almost always with the aggressor. In fact only true guerilla warfare has been shown to counter conventional warfare and that must also follow the rules of perceived weakness.
The only issue is a personal one for the aggressor and that is the reason behind the aggression to begin with. Yet human nature dictates that unfortunately this will never change, as much as some of us might want it to. People are people are people.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
304
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 14:06:31 -
[5] - Quote
The whole wardec system needs an overhaul because atm it is mainly used to harass highsec and newbie corps. |
Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
489
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 14:11:12 -
[6] - Quote
hmu-smh wrote:I'd create a way to know exactly what system ALL your targets are located, with 15 minute delay. It is called a locator agent.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5792
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 14:24:49 -
[7] - Quote
hmu-smh wrote:I'd create a way to know exactly what system ALL your targets are located, with 15 minute delay. Hahahaa... Oh wait, you were serious?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
76
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 15:16:12 -
[8] - Quote
Literally the only purpose of war declarations are to attack other people in highsec, unless you're operating a NRDS alliance and want to formalize your engagement out in null with a war decc. I don't see anything that needs changing. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
238
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 15:41:21 -
[9] - Quote
How I would like to see the wardec system get revamped.
Isk based "war goal" the agressor sets the amount if isk worth in assets that they want to see destroyed. They must pay that amount of isk and it gets placed into an escrow account. When the agressor destroys a defenders ship it counts against the war goal. When the defender destroys an attackers ship half of fhe value gets deducted from the escrow and is payed out as a bounty.
War continues until either the war goal is met. The escrow is depleted, or the attacker cancels the war. Or, the defender can pay off an amount equal to the cost of the war.
When the war ends. The attacker gets back the remaining escrow -10% (administration fees) and if the defender has payed off the war, they will also get 50% of the buyout.
Buying out a wardec will prevent a new one from being issued for say 2 weeks.
Numbers may need some tweeking since this is off the top of my head. But the way I see it it does several things 1) it gives a good reason for the defender to fight, since it can help to end the war faster and they get payed. 2) it raises the cost of the war with the goals. 3) because the war will last until goals are met, it de-incentivizes "just don't log in for the week" 4) it gives an out for industrial corps willing to pay through the nose for it. While still giving a benefit to the attacker. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1535
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 15:44:18 -
[10] - Quote
Commander Spurty wrote:War decs are failing to achieve objectives of a war.. Really?
What are the objectives that are failing to be achieved?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
76
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 15:45:33 -
[11] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:How I would like to see the wardec system get revamped.
Isk based "war goal" the agressor sets the amount if isk worth in assets that they want to see destroyed. They must pay that amount of isk and it gets placed into an escrow account. When the agressor destroys a defenders ship it counts against the war goal. When the defender destroys an attackers ship half of fhe value gets deducted from the escrow and is payed out as a bounty.
War continues until either the war goal is met. The escrow is depleted, or the attacker cancels the war. Or, the defender can pay off an amount equal to the cost of the war.
When the war ends. The attacker gets back the remaining escrow -10% (administration fees) and if the defender has payed off the war, they will also get 50% of the buyout.
Buying out a wardec will prevent a new one from being issued for say 2 weeks.
Numbers may need some tweeking since this is off the top of my head. But the way I see it it does several things 1) it gives a good reason for the defender to fight, since it can help to end the war faster and they get payed. 2) it raises the cost of the war with the goals. 3) because the war will last until goals are met, it de-incentivizes "just don't log in for the week" 4) it gives an out for industrial corps willing to pay through the nose for it. While still giving a benefit to the attacker.
Set goal of 400million Show up and destroy their Raitaru Didn't have to pay 1bil to target it, defenders lost far more than 400mil |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
4004
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 16:09:45 -
[12] - Quote
Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun.
Is this happening in high sec? Most of the time, no. The receiver of the war dec will most likely stay docked for the duration. The players will leave corp, or play alts, or play a different game. This leaves the attacker with no targets, which is hardly any fun. This was summed up by CCP in some CSM minutes a few years ago:
"Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.
Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? "
The only thing I can see to help the issue: Limit war decs to those groups of players who enjoy that style of game play. One way to do this: A corp can declare itself neutral. Doing so means it cannot be in a war, not as an attacker, defender, or ally. For balance it also means it cannot be in an alliance, or have any in-space structures (POS, citadel, complex, etc.)
Another option for doing this: A corp is automatically neutral, unless and until it puts up a structure in space.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1535
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 16:20:21 -
[13] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun. Where is this coming from?
I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Akane Togenada
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
65
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 17:10:55 -
[14] - Quote
Isn-¦t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn-¦t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced. This "strategy" is not only boring but also quite unneccesary since it's so easy to avoid most of the fighting simply by not going to trade hub regions.
As most of you probably know the Corp I'm a member of is perpetually war decced and our choice on how to handle wars is to go on with our everyday buisness and not make a huge fuss about it. Trade Hubs should always be handled by out of corp alts anyway so I personally don-¦t see a huge issue with wars. |
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
76
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 17:23:12 -
[15] - Quote
It sounds like, OP, a lot of the problem with wars is that people don't want to fight them, and that's not something CCP can or should enforce. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
240
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 17:44:11 -
[16] - Quote
Wolfgang Jannesen wrote:Bjorn Tyrson wrote:How I would like to see the wardec system get revamped.
Isk based "war goal" the agressor sets the amount if isk worth in assets that they want to see destroyed. They must pay that amount of isk and it gets placed into an escrow account. When the agressor destroys a defenders ship it counts against the war goal. When the defender destroys an attackers ship half of fhe value gets deducted from the escrow and is payed out as a bounty.
War continues until either the war goal is met. The escrow is depleted, or the attacker cancels the war. Or, the defender can pay off an amount equal to the cost of the war.
When the war ends. The attacker gets back the remaining escrow -10% (administration fees) and if the defender has payed off the war, they will also get 50% of the buyout.
Buying out a wardec will prevent a new one from being issued for say 2 weeks.
Numbers may need some tweeking since this is off the top of my head. But the way I see it it does several things 1) it gives a good reason for the defender to fight, since it can help to end the war faster and they get payed. 2) it raises the cost of the war with the goals. 3) because the war will last until goals are met, it de-incentivizes "just don't log in for the week" 4) it gives an out for industrial corps willing to pay through the nose for it. While still giving a benefit to the attacker. Set goal of 400million Show up and destroy their Raitaru Didn't have to pay 1bil to target it, defenders lost far more than 400mil
Not a perfect system and could use some tweeking. Maybe a minimum 1 bil to start a war or something. (Or maybe adjust the on the books value of a Raitaru to be more in line with market prices)
But even if it doesn't, in your example. Defenders pay 400 mil, wardec gets canceled attackers get 200 mil, +360 back from fees. Raitaru is saved and protected from that corp for 2 weeks.
Alternatively, defending corp shows up, puts up a fight, destroys 2 or 3 battleships, wardec ends 24 hours later (so even if reinforced cannot he destroyed) defenders gain 200 mil. Attackers loose full 400 and would need to Dec again to try and get the next timer putting another x amount of isk on the line. |
Charley Varrick
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 17:45:02 -
[17] - Quote
Akane Togenada wrote:Isn-¦t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn-¦t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced.
Depends. If the war dec'ing corp has hundreds of members and unlimited resorces and the defender corp is a small, 10 man corp struggling to get ahead...I'd say advising your corp to stay docked is a wise move. Now 2 small corps fighting over system belts...That's a different story. That is what war dec's were meant for. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18695
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 17:56:20 -
[18] - Quote
Not being easy to avoid would be nice. |
mkint
1504
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 18:01:46 -
[19] - Quote
I guess I'm still fuzzy on what the "point" of the wardec mechanic is. Or, I guess, what it should be. From my experience, it seems it's used mostly as a tool to get easy kills cheaply. Also in my experience, that also contains the counter to it. If a defender can make each kill too expensive or too difficult, the aggressor retracts the war and it ends. Which is also why I don't like the removal of the P&P watchlist. It incentivizes running and hiding, rather than fighting, which makes the game LESS fun for both attacker and defenders.
I think to "fix" wardecs, to make them more fun, there needs to be a broader rework. A set of tools need to be made that would help to fill the information gap between an experienced aggressor and newbie defenders, so they would actually *want* to fight and feel like they have a chance. I suppose the question is what information should be available to whom?
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2604
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 18:50:52 -
[20] - Quote
Algarion Getz wrote:The whole wardec system needs an overhaul because atm it is mainly used to harass highsec and newbie corps. if your corp can't stand a highsec war I mean what was the point of it really?
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
4004
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 18:53:24 -
[21] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun. Where is this coming from? I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics.
"CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? "
Relevant part underlined.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1535
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 18:58:18 -
[22] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun. Where is this coming from? I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics. "CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? " Relevant part underlined. Said where?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3178
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 19:55:15 -
[23] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun. Where is this coming from? I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics. "CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? " Relevant part underlined. Said where?
The 2012 Winter Minutes.
From the same discussion:
CCP SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.
Wars are basically fine. They do what they are suppose to do: allow conflict to take place in highsec as the game is intended to work. There are some holes to plug, perhaps some tweaks to be made, and the whole game would benefit from some proper conflict drivers/objectives, but wars as a mechanism to remove NPCs from the equation of fighting in highsec works just dandy.
And can be fun to boot.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Akane Togenada
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
66
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 20:16:47 -
[24] - Quote
Charley Varrick wrote:Akane Togenada wrote:Isn-¦t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn-¦t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced. Depends. If the war dec'ing corp has hundreds of members and unlimited resorces and the defender corp is a small, 10 man corp struggling to get ahead...I'd say advising your corp to stay docked is a wise move. Now 2 small corps fighting over system belts...That's a different story. That is what war dec's were meant for.
I don-¦t think War Deccs where only meant to be used like you say and as for small Corps getting 'bullied' by the big guys there are a few options I believe are preferable to the dock up one:
Option 1: Get friends and band together for protection. Option 2: Get a big alliance to take you in under their protection. If you prove to be competent and provide them with a usable service it might be possible. Option 3: If you have no structures to defend (and a small corp shouldn-¦t) just pack up and leave the system. I have been through quite a few empty high sec systems just waiting to get 'colonized'. Option 4: Though it's a bit silly just disbanding the Corp and reforming it again is also preferable to staying docked.
Finally I do belive that the vast majority of high sec wars are not declared to evict Corps from a certain area but to get kills. If a War decced Corp stays away from Trade Hubs and their surrounding area they should be mostly fine. |
Ptraci
3 R Corporation The Irukandji.
2009
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 20:29:44 -
[25] - Quote
If you have trouble with war decs or the war dec mechanics just leave high sec. The rest of EVE is constantly at war with everyone unless they're blue (and even then sometimes). Seriously.
The ONLY use for war decs is in high sec. Nah don't give me crap about low sec, no one in low sec is worried about gate guns or sec status. No one. You tank it, or you bring logi, or both.
It's high sec carebears who cry about war decs. High sec structures can be targeted. And carebears who forget their renter corp/nullsec alliance is under war dec and get popped on the way to or from Jita because they're too dumb or forgot to use a neutral hauling alt.
Seriously, this affects so few people it's laughable. And to those few who complain about it - what, you think "high sec" means absolutely risk and consequence free? No, your stuff can be popped in high sec too. At least you get 24 hours' notice. Don't like it, take everything out of your POS/Citadel and put it in someone else's or an NPC station. Too lazy to do that? THEN YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
Or you could always, I dunno - defend your stuff. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5802
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 22:22:56 -
[26] - Quote
I don't think the OP was suggesting the removal of wardecs. The problem is that there's nothing to really fight over in high-sec. You can't stake a claim to asteroid or ice belts, and Citadels and Engineering Complexes are incredibly tough for any small group to take down. POS aren't really much better. And if you don't like wardecs you can just go neutral and join an NPC corporation and pay the tax.
The problem is that no one really wants to fight in high-sec because wardecs are almost always a one-sided proposition, and there's nothing really to be gained in fighting back.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Charley Varrick
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 22:35:34 -
[27] - Quote
Akane Togenada wrote:Charley Varrick wrote:Akane Togenada wrote:Isn-¦t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn-¦t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced. Depends. If the war dec'ing corp has hundreds of members and unlimited resorces and the defender corp is a small, 10 man corp struggling to get ahead...I'd say advising your corp to stay docked is a wise move. Now 2 small corps fighting over system belts...That's a different story. That is what war dec's were meant for. I don-¦t think War Deccs where only meant to be used like you say and as for small Corps getting 'bullied' by the big guys there are a few options I believe are preferable to the dock up one: Option 1: Get friends and band together for protection. Option 2: Get a big alliance to take you in under their protection. If you prove to be competent and provide them with a usable service it might be possible. Option 3: If you have no structures to defend (and a small corp shouldn-¦t) just pack up and leave the system. I have been through quite a few empty high sec systems just waiting to get 'colonized'. Option 4: Though it's a bit silly just disbanding the Corp and reforming it again is also preferable to staying docked. Finally I do belive that the vast majority of high sec wars are not declared to evict Corps from a certain area but to get kills. If a War decced Corp stays away from Trade Hubs and their surrounding area they should be mostly fine.
1. If a new small corp had more than 10 friends they wouldn't be a 10 man corp now would they? 2. There is absolutely nothing a new small corp has to offer a big alliance. 3. Sure. Just pack up and move...I'm sure the players lurking outside the station waiting for you to undock would agree. 4. there are people in this very thread who think that shouldn't even be possible. |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
28305
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 22:41:34 -
[28] - Quote
I had strange wardec recently. Guy in some fairly big corp was mining in orca while wardecced and lost it to some russian player who was in single man corp. He left or was kicked out after losing it. Made his own corp. Then he wardecced me, and did not even said why, blocked me even. He was nowhere to find while wardec was in effect.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
667
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 22:45:39 -
[29] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The only thing I can see to help the issue: Limit war decs to those groups of players who enjoy that style of game play. One way to do this: A corp can declare itself neutral. Doing so means it cannot be in a war, not as an attacker, defender, or ally. For balance it also means it cannot be in an alliance, or have any in-space structures (POS, citadel, complex, etc.) Idea worth developing, weak sides of it?
Black Pedro wrote:Wars are basically fine. They do what they are suppose to do: allow conflict to take place in highsec as the game is intended to work. They allow confilct but far from fine. I left E-uni back when I started because of constant wardecc. I was tired of alt playing and docking when reds were showing. Most of the time it's single sided gameplay, and best conterplay is to not undock. If I won't undock and don't want to play on alt the best I could do is to find another game. Leaving E-uni and creating my one man corp was the best decision ever, no hub camp since then.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
If you need a scout mail me.
|
Akane Togenada
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
66
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 22:48:16 -
[30] - Quote
Charley Varrick wrote:1. If a new small corp had more than 10 friends they wouldn't be a 10 man corp now would they? 2. There is absolutely nothing a new small corp has to offer a big alliance. 3. Sure. Just pack up and move...I'm sure the players lurking outside the station waiting for you to undock would agree. 4. there are people in this very thread who think that shouldn't even be possible.
1. I was obviously talking about several small corps joining forces but yeah you are right that it would be better to just make a larger corp or formal alliance instead. 2. If you say so ... when I look at the bigger alliances there are always atleast a few of their member corps that are <10 players. 3. I obviously meant they should move before having the station camped. There's also a thing called jump clones that should be used to set up back up locations for the members if their main staging system does become camped. 4. I'm one of them and just included the option since it currently is one possible way of making the war go away.
I also can-¦t stress enough that high-sec war deccers usually don-¦t go after their targets but instead camp Trade Hubs and adjecent systems. In other words the best way to handle a war decc if it's from one of the usual suspects is to mostly ignore it and keep away from the main trade hubs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |