EVE Search - War Decs Are Being Nerfed Next

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

War Decs Are Being Nerfed Next

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Topic
Kazuma Saruwatari Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:33:00 - [31] CSM... -
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:35:00 - [32] Edited by: Veldya on 07/08/2008 08:35:22 Originally by: MarleWH Since when is a real war dictated by what the defenders want? Real war? When do pirates declare wars on anyone? In "real" wars the aggressor has as much to lose as the defender. While some people do not like real life comparisons, the current Wardec system is akin to a street gang declaring war on a Bank to avoid getting prosecuted by the police for holding up an armored car. The Bank has no realistic way to defend it's armored cars from criminals and relies on the police force more for punishment than prevention. Wardec system is part of allowing warring corps and alliances to disrupt logistics than allow pirates to circumvent the consequences of committing crimes. Criminals do it harder than those following the rules, you need to accept that. The life of a pirate is going to be harder than the life of a typical capsuleer. CCP has left abusble mechanics in place for far too long and you have incorrectly thought that a lack of action to fix loopholes and abusable mechanics means it is the intent of the mechanics. They never bothered to fix them because they were never abused to the extent they are abused now. Yes, there is a role to play with Pirates harassing corps. But, it has to be a lot more than just frivolous wars declared. When I was in a major alliance we were getting wardec by 10 man pirate corps once or twice a week and you would see zero action from these corps, they are just random corps looking for a way to bypass Concord consequences and in no way at all are they wars or even conflicts. Most of them started and ended with no conflict whatsoever. I am all for wardecs but they should be real wars and not just a means to avoid consequences of your actions.
Leora Nomen Amarr	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Ushatuhkwa Kaeshe Originally by: Leora Nomen He is right about how the suicide ganks get often used. But the question is, is that really such a terrible thing and broken game mechanic that needs to be tampered with? Originally by: Leora Nomen He is right about how the nanos get often used. But the question is, is that really such a terrible thing and broken game mechanic that needs to be tampered with? see what i did there? I don't see because these two issues are too dissimilar to be presented the way you're trying to do it. guide to game time codes
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:56:00 - [34] What chopping block? Are they going to remove war declaration? Unlikely. The quoted text states there is a desire to increase depth to the war declaration system and goes on to explain why. That doesn't necessarily mandate changes will be "nerfs" to war declarations, in fact it could make the system much more robust.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:57:00 - [35] Originally by: Le Skunk War decs are next on the chopping block. You mean they might actually alter the ****poor current mechanic and add some objectives so we can have some meaningful action? Say it's not so!
Vladimir Griftin	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:00:00 - [36] The reasons they are doing it are obvious, people have become accustomed to 'easy' PvPing in empire. Its far easier to lurk in Jita waiting for haulers to jump through than it is to go out into low sec and look for targets. People are human, of course, they will go for the low-risk, high reward option every time. The only way to stop it is to remove the option to do it. In doing so, low sec and zero sec becomes the next logical step after FW as it should be. Low sec is currently a barren wasteland. If empire gankers don't understand why changes like this are for the good of the game, then the game is better off without them anyway. The next step after this is to make level 4 missions force players to move 5+ jumps to reach mission areas, the effect of this would be twofold, it would increase chances of low sec missions and it would decrease efficiency for farmers. Then we sit back and watch as players spread out as they should.
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:09:00 - [37] I find it amazing to see a CCP dev refer to the wardec system as a "pay-to-grief" system. CCP, where have you hired these new devs? SOL? Let me tell you: They suck!
Robert Rosenberg Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:11:00 - [38] So Skunk, why not let your account lapse? You have been hailing "the last straw of PVP" for the past two, maybe three patches? I forget if you made posts like this back for the PRIVATEERS nerf (which was the only nerf you have complained about which I agree was unjust)
hedfunk Caldari Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:19:00 - [39] Learn to adapt. Eve is a cold, dark.....hey is that sunlight? Wow, this is quite nice! Oh hey there little murloc, wanna come dance in the sun with me? It's ok little guy, we can't get griefed by some horde guys, I haven't turned pvp on!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:22:00 - [40] While the term 'pay-to-grief' is a misnomer (because It's Not Griefing), the intent behind it is not wrong - it is simply pay, PvP, end. Adding more complexity might not be a bad thing. They'll probably find a way to make it a bad thing - DesuSigs

Rabbitgod Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:23:00 - [41] I can see how war dec victory conditions "could" work. Example: -Corp A wants corp B out of The Forge region. To do this they go to concord and put up the money for a war and tell concord their goal. Concord grants the right to war under the following conditions. -The war is over and you can not redec for X(a week or two?) amount of time if they remove their offices from The Forge. -The war is over if you remove your offices from The Forge. -The you can not cancel/surrender the war until your offices are removed from The Forge. -Concord will not allow the losing corp to open any new offices in The Forge for X(90 days?) amount of time. -This gives the defender a way to win. They can either hold out until the cost of the war is too high for the attackers to maintain(maybe war cost should rise as time goes by so that after, let say, six months the war bill runs into the tens of billions) or, they can fight back and cause enough damage to the attacker that he wants to quit and in doing so is forced to move. -The defender could also be notified by concord of the conditions and agree to them, ending the war with out a single shot ever being fired. What this would do is stop the willy-nilly war decs on corps full of six month old players by 4 year old pvper want-a-be's. Attackers will need to be dedicated to winning and pick targets that will actually have to fight back or undock in order to continue making money. A system would also need to be introduced where camping a station is financially painful for the one being camped. IE the camp is scary and it scares the station residents who vote/demand that the station government raise the office fees of the one being camped inside and/or it could hurt the standing with the agents and the NPC corp that owns the station. It could be a simple mechanism as attacking fleet shows up at station Z that has members of corp B inside so they right click on the station and select camp >>> corp B. Corp B members get notified that they are being camped and can either stay inside and take the standings hit or B undock amount of time. Logging off during, or maybe even 5 minutes before, won't help the situation much since the attacker can select camp option and have the camp effect hold for one hour after everyone in the station, logs. The timer should also reset if members log back in before that hour is up if the campers are still on grid with the station. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator (mods@ccpgames.com)
Hakaro Ino Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:25:00 - [42] What I feel wars in eve should be like: Corp ceo: Damn, those random corp building the same thing we are building and undercutting our prices are costing us lots of isk. corp "secuirty" director: Well, we have a pretty good combat wing ready, why not war dec them and let our boys disrupt their supply line, thus increasing the cost of raw materials for them so they cant under cut us. Corp ceo: great idea, i will file the paperwork with concord in the morning Current wardec system random "pirate" 1: I wanna go pvp random "pirate" 2: yeah so do i, but low sec is to scary. the other mean pirates will kill us "pirate" ceo: dont worry lads, I have just filed paperwork with concord. in the morning we will be at a state of war with they small mining corp next door. mining lasers dont hurt ships random "pirate" 1: yay, i am uber hardcore pvper now!!! lets hope the wardec changes, if any, change this
Banana Torres Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:28:00 - [43] Originally by: Veldya When I was involved in a big 0.0 alliance we would get 1 to 2 wardecs a week and you would see zero action from these 10 man pirate corps. If I was in a hauler in Jita I probably would have seen some action... Going after the logistics arm of an alliance would seem to be a perfectly valid use of a wardec. And a 10 man corp invading the home terrority of a "big 0.0 alliance" would not achieve much. If the changes to the wardec system does not allow haulers in jita to be targetted then it is a pretty **** poor imitation of a war. "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; except for outside jita 4-4 cause the rules don't allow it" Doesn't have the same ring to it.
Lrd Byron	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:29:00 - [44] Granted I am total noob when it comes to corp warfare, but what about making it so that corps without any PoS's are not war deccable? I mean, a PoS is the real advantage to being in a player corp as opposed to the noob corp, so this lets people who just want to putz around hi sec with a couple friends do so unmolested. Sure it makes a lot of people undeccable, but if they didn't want to fight they could just join the noob corp together for no real disadvantage.
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:34:00 - [45] Originally by: Vladimir Griftin The next step after this is to make level 4 missions force players to move 5+ jumps to reach mission areas, the effect of this would be twofold, it would increase chances of low sec missions and it would decrease efficiency for farmers. Then we sit back and watch as players spread out as they should. I'd like to see the mission system overhauled, jumping 5+ times is just going to add some travel time to the isk/hour. What I recommend: 1) Remove non-named T1 modules from NPC drops, T1 modules generate massive amounts of resources which should be accumulated via mining. To counter it just push up the bounty and mission rewards to compensate. 2) Add in social skills to allow you to access agents outside the station, outside the system and within the region. Make those 3 charisma people pay 3) Agent will give you a misson based on the security status of the system you are in with a mission in deadspace in that system with rewards that scale based on the security status of the system. Thus you should be able to take Level 1, 2 and 3 missions in low-sec space for significantly greater rewards. Many of those missions are doable in PvP setups where you don't often need much of a tank. 4) Add in lucrative mining missions in low-sec space which spawn quantities of rare based on the security rating of the system. 5) Add in lucrative low-sec hauling and manufacturing missions. Add in a lot more manufacturing and research facilities to low sec, keep manufacturing costs in low sec low. 6) Significantly cut back the manufacturing and research capabilities in high-sec and ramp the cost up through the roof, overheads should be a significant element in production at present they are not. Low-Sec should be the manufacturing haven. Add a massive sales tax to high-sec manufacturing so they can fund their FW costs. It will drive more manufacturing and thus logistics to lowsec. 7) Add massive sales tax on high-sec contracts. You want more people that feel living out in low-sec is a cheaper alternative to life in high-sec. High sec should be high cost of security. Low-sec should be where the black market thrives.
eliminator2 Gallente Black Water.	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:38:00 - [46] Does anyway else notice that CCP havent even said anything in these topics that suggest they are failing or that CSM will actually bring this up in there next meating maybe they listen to carebear whiner (well ofcourse they do) but would it hurt CCP to actually take in acount the fighting side i mean u say ur trying to make the game more realistic iv never seen a war were defenders do anything u r saying but i tell u one thing iv seen a leadership wer they ignore there community its called goverment POLITICS RULE CCP
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:40:00 - [47] Originally by: eliminator2 Does anyway else notice that CCP havent even said anything in these topics that suggest they are failing or that CSM will actually bring this up in there next meating maybe they listen to carebear whiner (well ofcourse they do) but would it hurt CCP to actually take in acount the fighting side i mean u say ur trying to make the game more realistic iv never seen a war were defenders do anything u r saying but i tell u one thing iv seen a leadership wer they ignore there community its called goverment POLITICS RULE CCP http://myeve.eve-online.com/council/transcripts/2008/CSM_CCP_Meetings_20-23_06_2008.pdf I didn't see any CSM objections to the topics raised to date.
Sellyna	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:44:00 - [48] Is't this the fundation of eve? This is more stupid then the carrier nerf!
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.07 10:05:00 - [49] its like a bad ****ing joke. Its not april 1st again is it??? EVE>> hell/wow in a hand basket PAY TO GRIEF?? THATS WHAT MY SUB IS FO!! I PAY TO GRIEF >>ITS EVE - toughen up and defend yourself!!! or it was eve, now its some hollowed out husk of a once unique + decent game... Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.07 10:26:00 - [50] Originally by: Sorted its like a bad ****ing joke. Its not april 1st again is it??? EVE>> hell/wow in a hand basket PAY TO GRIEF?? THATS WHAT MY SUB IS FO!! I PAY TO GRIEF >>ITS EVE - toughen up and defend yourself!!! or it was eve, now its some hollowed out husk of a once unique + decent game... Nobody pays to grief, you pay for the opportunity to try and grief. Someone else pays for the right to have a fighting chance against being griefed. The only ones complaining are those who do not like challenges, those who have been abusing the no-skill, no-loss element of PvP and pirating. A new dawn is approaching, one in which you have to earn your kills, like everyone else.

Tenoh	Posted - 2008.08.07 10:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Sorted its like a bad **ing joke. Its not april 1st again is it??? EVE>> hell/wow in a hand basket PAY TO GRIEF?? THATS WHAT MY SUB IS FO!! I PAY TO GRIEF >>ITS EVE - toughen up and defend yourself!!! or it was eve, now its some hollowed out husk of a once unique + decent game... and i pay sub to have fun,with you motherin***** wanting to ruin it.if that cant be done then i am sure ccp wont mine if i take my money somewhere else.
Ooyama Caldari Rastana CMP Motivated and Determined	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:06:00 - [52] Originally by: Rabbitgod Edited by: Rabbitgod on 07/08/2008 09:30:26 I can see how war dec victory conditions "could" work. Example: -Corp A wants corp B out of The Forge region. To do this they go to concord and put up the money for a war and tell concord their goal. Concord grants the right to war under the following conditions. -The war is over and you can not redec for X(a week or two?) amount of time if they remove their offices from The Forge.(Victory) -The war is over if you remove your offices from The Forge.(Defeated) -The war can not be canceled until your offices are removed from The Forge.(Defeated) -Concord will not allow the losing corp to open any new offices in The Forge for X(90 days?) amount of time. -This gives the defender a way to win. They can either hold out until the cost of the war is too high for the attackers to maintain(maybe war cost should rise as time goes by so that after, let say, six months the war bill runs into the tens of billions) or, they can fight back and cause enough damage to the attacker that he wants to quit and in doing so is forced to move. -The defender could also be notified by concord of the conditions and agree to them, ending the war with out a single shot ever being fired. What this would do is stop the willy-nilly war decs on corps full of six month old players by 4 year old pvper want-a-be's. Attackers will need to be dedicated to winning and pick targets that will actually have to fight back or undock in order to continue making money. A system would also need to be introduced where camping a station is financially painful for the one being camped. IE the camp is scary and it scares the station residents who vote/demand that the station government raise the office fees of the one being camped inside and/or it could hurt the standing with the agents and the NPC corp that owns the station. It could be a simple mechanism as attacking fleet shows up at station Z that has members of corp B inside so they right click on the station and select camp >>> corp B. Corp B members get notified that they are being camped and can either stay inside and take the standings hit or B undock for at least X amount of time. Logging off during, or maybe even 5 minutes before, won't help the situation much since the attacker can select camp option and have the camp effect hold for one hour after everyone in the station, logs. The timer should also reset if members log back in before that hour is up if the campers are still on grid with the station. Nice ideas there,, i especially like the war-goals thing. Afterall,, it IS concord we're talking bout, and as they ain't the sharpest knifes in the drawer, they'd need some sorta explanation to understand what's going on,,, "Yama"
Pesadel0 Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:19:00 - [53] LOl CCP..... ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:28:00 - [54] Originally by: Le Skunk Quote: Originally by: CCP Wrangler Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. Valentijn (CSM Dierdra Vaal) commented that under the current system, the defender has no control over the war and the attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as they keep paying the bills. He also observed that there currently is no determined end goal to the war itself. War decs are next on the chopping block. One wonders whether this is further evidence of a strengthening of CONCORD by the mysterious thread eating JOVIANS. SKUNK No they're not, Chicken Little. You were all over the changes that took the Privateers' toy away too. This is more of the same. I keep hoping you'll have something positive to say at some point. I continue to be disappointed.
Keeves Minmatar the evil ones	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:36:00 - [55] Originally by: Veldya Edited by: Veldya on 07/08/2008 08:35:22 Shit Your a ****ing idiot.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:44:00 - [56] Looks like CCP is finally ridding the game from griefers. Good move, IMHO. This game was never meant to be griefer's paradise. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Surreptitious State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:51:00 - [57] Someone here already said it best. Since when is non-consensual PVP considered griefing? Syrup
AmosTrask	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:52:00 - [58] I would love to see the wer dec system become more complex and think some of the ideas voiced here are great BUT... I also think the pay to greif should be left in, as a pirates option to war dec call it bribing the coppers to turn a blind eye,Just make it more expencive make it affect standings so on so on...
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:57:00 - [59] Originally by: Veldya Originally by: Sorted its like a bad ****ing joke. Its not april 1st again is it??? EVE>> hell/wow in a hand basket PAY TO GRIEF?? THATS WHAT MY SUB IS FO!! I PAY TO GRIEF >>ITS EVE - toughen up and defend yourself!!! or it was eve, now its some hollowed out husk of a once unique + decent game... Nobody pays to grief, you pay for the opportunity to try and grief. Someone else pays for the right to have a fighting chance against being griefed. The only ones complaining are those who do not like challenges, those who have been abusing the no-skill, no-loss element of PvP and pirating. A new dawn is approaching, one in which you have to earn your kills, like everyone else. They have the same tools (the targets) as we do (the aggressors). They seem to be making non-consenual pvp = griefing, so i did too. I THOUGHT that the only greif in EVE was repeated harssment in local followed by repeated podding of a random guy for no other reason than "coz i can". And even that was a greya area. Seems its headed more towards consenual PVP or its a greif play....pah.. 100 other games with those rules i could play, i was playing this cause it was different. If you didnt want to fight you had to use your wits to stay outa combat. I have neevr found myself in a fight I didnt want to be in in 3 years. Its not that hard. Vote against the nano nerf! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=832371
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:04:00 - [60] Was going to throw my suggestion into this thread but then I found the original thread here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=819325 This change could go really well or really badly. We could end up with a regenerated and improved wardec system or we could end up with a carebear's paradise :/. I posted my own suggestions in that thread but I don't know what good it will do since the thread's a month old already. They could have already made their decisions. Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.