EVE Search - [Proposal] Wardec System Overhaul for Dominion Release

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Wardec System Overhaul for Dominion Release

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Saithe Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.14 11:30:00 - [1] Overhaul the Corporation/Alliance Wardec System ----------------------------------------------- The current wardec system works, however there are some major flaws in it. I have been reading around other ideas, and have written up this post of proposed ideas I would like to present for discussion, and hopefully CSM/Dev Recgonition. 1) Corps can jump into and out of alliance to dodge a wardec. Currently, if a corp is wardec'd and joins an alliance, the wardec carries over to the alliance. I believe that it should follow the corp solely for the duration that the dec was paid for. After that, its either the alliance or nothing. A corp can also leave an alliance that is wardec'd to dodge it. I believe that the wardec should follow the abandoning corp for the duration that the dec was paid for, then its up to the corp/alliance that made the initial wardec to dec a particular corp that jumped out of the alliance or not. There has been alot of discussion that I have seen where people believe that if a corp leaves an alliance that is decced, then both parties are able to shoot the corp. This would not be right, as the alliance that the corp has left has not paid for a wardec on the leaving corp. 2) Active Wardecs Currently, anyone is free to dec anyone, and retract any war they please, whenever they want, provide they make the payment. I propose a few ideas: a) If 2 corperations are involved with a wardec, and a corperations POS gets sieged somewhere, the wardec cannot be retracted until the pos comes out of reinforced UNLESS the wardec gets invalidated by CONCORD due to non-payment. This would prevent people from watching their POS get steamrolled to reinforced, only to retract the wardec and laugh at the assaulters. A possible flaw I see in this is someone going around and sieging pos's just to keep the dec going, however this can be easily identified, and CCP can void the wardec as per exploit terms. b) When a corporation makes a wardec mutual that was placed upon them by anther corporation, AND the corporation that placed the initial wardec tries to retract it, then the option to pay for the wardec should fall immediately to the corporation that made the wardec mutual. There should be a 6 hour timer or so on this, something short to disallow exploitation, yet enough time so that someone cannot try to sneak it through without a director on. Another Option to wardecs would be a little trickier, however provides a more fluid motion in easily getting surrender terms. This would be the current contract system, and is explained as follows: Corp A wants to dec B. They set up a Declaration of War (the costs being the same as they are currently) with Requirements of Surrender detailed (as we can currently do with an Item Exchange contract). The duration of the contract is 1 week. Once corp B fulfills the terms of the contract (be it ISK or items) the war comes to an end in 1 hour. If B does not fulfill the terms of the contract in the 7 day contract period A can simply extend the contract, or change it (altering a war declaration contract can only be made during the 24 hour termination period at the end of the contract duration) with a mouseclick and payment. Corp A can allow the contract to end and the war terminates 24 hours later. Corp A can retract the contract at any time, ending the war in 1 hour. If the contract is made mutual by the declared corporation (an option available within the first 24 hour period of the contract before the war goes live) the contract timer halts until the mutual agreement is terminated by the declared entity. Once the mutual status is terminated the timer resumes until the end of its natural duration. Only the declared party can establish or rescind mutual war status. (more to post, ran out of space) Owing to lack of Eve-related content, signature removed. If you would like to discuss this, please mail [email protected] - Mitnal(lovespinkfont)
Saithe Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.14 11:38:00 - [2] If a tower is put into reinforced during the war and would come out of reinforced only after the war ends it's 'active state' is retained. I.E. if it's at war with A when it goes into reinforced then it retains war status for 4 hours once it comes out of reinforced mode... irregardless of war status. If it is engaged the target corp has full license to return fire per aggression rules. (Thank you Icarus Starkiller for this input.) I would greatly appricate as much feedback as possible on all these ideas. Rip them apart, tell me how they suck. THEN tell me how they can work, how to make them better. The wardec system desperately needs an overhaul, almost more than the current SOV system that is being worked on. -Saithe Co-Exec Heretic Nation. P.S. I really hate this 5 minute timer crap. Really bad. Owing to lack of Eve-related content, signature removed. If you would like to discuss this, please mail [email protected] - Mitnal(lovespinkfont)
Saithe Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.14 21:48:00 - [3] I notice this threads been read quite a bit. No one has a single response? At all?
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Smegnet Incorporated Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.14 22:55:00 - [4] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 14/09/2009 22:55:12 Quit reading after "Corps can dodge the wardeck" bit. I'm quite frankly sorry, but I do not support dodging of any kind. Take it like a man or disband. Pure and simple. We have too many corps in Eve as it is... --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.14 23:24:00 - [5] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 14/09/2009 22:55:12 Quit reading after "Corps can dodge the wardeck" bit. I'm quite frankly sorry, but I do not support dodging of any kind. Take it like a man or disband. Pure and simple. We have too many corps in Eve as it is... --Isaac Uh... Issac? He was stating a fact... not a proposal. And it is... a fact. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Saithe Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.15 03:03:00 - [6] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 14/09/2009 22:55:12 Quit reading after "Corps can dodge the wardeck" bit. I'm quite frankly sorry, but I do not support dodging of any kind. Take it like a man or disband. Pure and simple. We have too many corps in Eve as it is... --Isaac My statement may have been misleading, if you did not read the full statement. I intended to state that the current wardec system allows corps to dodge wardecs. I do not propose this or endorse this in any way, shape, or form; and I am proposing ideas to fix it.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Smegnet Incorporated Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.15 06:46:00 - [7] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 15/09/2009 06:46:39 -_- I apparently took stupid pills today and all my posts have been -100% suck factor. I apologize. An interesting idea, it would be nice to see wardecks overhauled as they are pretty bad atm. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Icarus Starkiller Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.09.15 12:38:00 - [8] Originally by: Saithe Corp A wants to dec B. They set up a Declaration of War (the costs being the same as they are currently) with Requirements of Surrender detailed (as we can currently do with an Item Exchange contract). The duration of the contract is 1 week. Once corp B fulfills the terms of the contract (be it ISK or items) the war comes to an end in 1 hour. If B does not fulfill the terms of the contract in the 7 day contract period A can simply extend the contract, or change it (altering a war declaration contract can only be made during the 24 hour termination period at the end of the contract duration) with a mouseclick and payment. Corp A can allow the contract to end and the war terminates 24 hours later. Corp A can retract the contract at any time, ending the war in 1 hour. If the contract is made mutual by the declared corporation (an option available within the first 24 hour period of the contract before the war goes live) the contract timer halts until the mutual agreement is terminated by the declared entity. Once the mutual status is terminated the timer resumes until the end of its natural duration. Only the declared party can establish or rescind mutual war status. We already have a strong, dynamic, and very functional Contract system. Porting the war declaration process over to this exact system (or a separate War Declaration Contract system) should not be a terribly difficult task. This will establish Terms of Surrender that the declaring corporation can put in place (yes, the Terms can be pointlessly out of reach if the Declaring party chooses make them so). The declared party should also be able to place their own counter-conditions that the declaring party can meet to end the war prior to the end of the War Period (counter-conditions render 'contract termination' closed for the declaring party - they either have to see the contract period through or meet their target's Terms of Surrender) Once the terms are met (by either party) the war ends almost immediately (1 hour) so that the surrendering party can get back to their normal operations in a timely manner and begin repairing the damage they've suffered. If the Terms of Surrender are met the Declaring party cannot choose to not accept them, it is a function of the Contract and as such is a binding agreement. Also, if the one party surrenders the victorious party cannot re-initiate another War Contract for a period of time (7 days to a month or some other feasibly logical period). Other parties are not prevented from declaring war, however. This would go a very long way toward making Wars more (for lack of a better term) functional and logical. Additionally: As Saithe said, leaving an alliance should not end the period of war for the exiting party unless the declaring party chooses to let them end the war. Exiting an alliance during a war creates a Sub-Contract that can be modified by both the declaring and exiting party to establish their own Terms of Surrender, ending the War in the aforementioned 1 hour period once met. Furthermore, War flags all members of the declared corporation the moment the Contract is issued (before it goes Live), and that flag is retained if they exit their corporation. They can freely join other corporations and their war status does not carry over to the new corporation. The War flagged target can be assisted by their new corporation, without Concord intercession, should that pilot come under attack, with the attendant aggression rules currently in place. --- War does not determine who is right... ... it determines who is left.
KristineKochanski	Posted - 2009.09.15 13:52:00 - [9] Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:55:01 Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:54:44 Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:53:55 Yes replying on an alt, OK now that's out of the way. You seem to have missed all the real issues what about Jita PvPers docking as soon as the Alliance they Dec'd arrives. What about the exploit of using neutral logistics. I would propose the following: War aggression would generate a 15 minute aggression timers during which time you would not be able to dock Jita, Rens and other key trader hubs would not be included in the wars, targets could be engaged anywhere else but camping Jita 4-4 undock would not be allowed. Logistics repping ships engaged in hostile acts will be concorded unless they themselves have an active war dec against the target ship Thoughts?
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.09.15 14:07:00 - [10] Originally by: KristineKochanski Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:55:01 Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:54:44 Edited by: KristineKochanski on 15/09/2009 13:53:55 Yes replying on an alt, OK now that's out of the way. You seem to have missed all the real issues what about Jita PvPers docking as soon as the Alliance they Dec'd arrives. What about the exploit of using neutral logistics. I would propose the following: War aggression would generate a 15 minute aggression timers during which time you would not be able to dock Jita, Rens and other key trader hubs would not be included in the wars, targets could be engaged anywhere else but camping Jita 4-4 undock would not be allowed. Logistics repping ships engaged in hostile acts will be concorded unless they themselves have an active war dec against the target ship Thoughts? PLEASE, stop that "Peace and love in Jita" stuff right now. If so, people will never leave Jita. And this isn't the game we want Eve to be. Just... think about it during 2 seconds. I agree that the agression mechanics are a bit broken, but your idea is so bad I don't even want to take the time needed to list all the reasons why. I'm sure a couple of forum trolls here will do it for me after reading your idea.

Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.09.15 14:49:00 - [11] true your ideas sucks and its bad....vewy bad. We should wardec your corp just because you thought about this. but anyway. I guess thats your price to pay to wardec an alliance that doesn't want to fight or a corp that doesn't want to fight. There probably in high sec or something. Come join the big boys down in nullsec and wardec of those guys. I'm pretty sure they be happy to kick your ass if you wardec'em...if you got the balls in the first place. Not all pvp'ers like this cause wardeccing an entity in nullsec is usually a bad idea...they shoot back...they shoot back big time
Dretzle Omega Global Economy Experts Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2009.09.15 15:22:00 - [12] I'd like to support some of the ideas put forth in this thread. 1) If an alliance is wardec'd, leaving the alliance should cancel the wardec for that corp (please keep reading, I explain). The reason for this is because wardeccing the alliance could be a valid tactic to try to break up the alliance. The wardeccers may want this. HOWEVER, if a corp itself is wardec'd, then the corp should continue wardec'd regardless of joining or leaving the alliance. 2) I like the contract ideas for wardecs. Makes these like treaties. However, any contract as far as a war goes should be optional. For example, you may place terms in the contract. Valid terms may be Corp X leaves the alliance, the alliance pays us X amount of ISK, we kill X number of ships in the alliance, etc. However, even if these contract terms are fulfilled, the deccing alliance will have to go into the contract and accept and cancel the war. (Or have an auto-accept option that cancels the war immediately (within an hour) if the terms are reached.) The reason for this is we wouldn't want to mess with the current system, which mirrors real wars in a good way in some ways, where even if two sides agree to the treaty you can still break your treaty. That's just my opinion, though. Either way, some kind of treaty or contracts for wars would be nice. Didn't the devs mention something about fully functional treaties in the blog? Maybe they could touch war decs, too.
Takon Orlani Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.15 15:27:00 - [13] Additionally, they need to fix mutual wars so that both parties have to agree on terms of surrender before the war can end. ROWDY WANTS YOU!!
Saithe Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.16 05:44:00 - [14] Lets keep this topic alive! The war dec system needs fixed badly!
KristineKochanski	Posted - 2009.09.16 14:27:00 - [15] This isn't about Peace and love in Jita it's about lame ass "War Dec'ers" who never leave Jita (Or Rens) stay within docking range and Dock as soon as the "Alliance or Corp" they dec'd turns up for a fight. We all know who I mean! You are right that empire PvP is broken but there are many ways it is broken not least of these being a belief that sitting at 4-4 undock ganking people who haven't loaded can in anyway be called PvP. The reason I suggest banning camping in these systems is to promote roaming PvP you know like everyone does in low sec and 0.0 now surely that is a good thing and provides a natural progression into low-sec and even 0.0
Dretzle Omega Caldari Global Economy Experts Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2009.09.16 16:09:00 - [16] Originally by: KristineKochanski This isn't about Peace and love in Jita it's about lame ass "War Dec'ers" who never leave Jita (Or Rens) stay within docking range and Dock as soon as the "Alliance or Corp" they dec'd turns up for a fight. We all know who I mean! You are right that empire PvP is broken but there are many ways it is broken not least of these being a belief that sitting at 4-4 undock ganking people who haven't loaded can in anyway be called PvP. The reason I suggest banning camping in these systems is to promote roaming PvP you know like everyone does in low sec and 0.0 now surely that is a good thing and provides a natural progression into low-sec and even 0.0 But what it would actually do is make these areas a safe place, and/or move the camping/ganking to another area (there's only so many ways into Jita). In Eve a war is meant to not be safe anywhere. If people "abuse" it and war dec people in Jita to try to get legal ganks, you could appropriately not go to Jita, or find a way around them, or haul with backup. If you make it not worth it, perhaps they will avoid decing you and your corp in the future.
Saithe Caldari Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.09.16 17:46:00 - [17] Originally by: KristineKochanski This isn't about Peace and love in Jita it's about lame ass "War Dec'ers" who never leave Jita (Or Rens) stay within docking range and Dock as soon as the "Alliance or Corp" they dec'd turns up for a fight. We all know who I mean! You are right that empire PvP is broken but there are many ways it is broken not least of these being a belief that sitting at 4-4 undock ganking people who haven't loaded can in anyway be called PvP. The reason I suggest banning camping in these systems is to promote roaming PvP you know like everyone does in low sec and 0.0 now surely that is a good thing and provides a natural progression into low-sec and even 0.0 Screw that. If the lame ass wardeccers are not leaving Jita (and other market hubs) then they are not somewhere else. Theyre not in the alternate hubs. We all know who you are talking about here, Priva***s. They wardec any alliance thats bloated and large, and rich. They are simply there looking for the **s that undock their shiny expensive ships and getting the easy kill so they dont have to do any work whatsoever. Ever notice how fast the scatter when you show in in 3 or 4 numbers to fight them? Hell, I scared 14 of them off when i was in curse alliance 2 years ago in a crow. A lone crow scared off 14 priva***s. If they wardec you, and you fight back, they will think again about deccing you a second time.
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.09.16 22:42:00 - [18] No. The only real war dec I've ever seen is the ******ed one man corp who war decs an entire alliance and demands 20 million a week to leave them alone. Dodging war decs by leaving an Alliance seems like a perfectly valid tactic to me. I think war dec griefing by people who NEVER UNDOCK maybe should be addressed first.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.16 22:52:00 - [19] Originally by: Uronksur Suth No. The only real war dec I've ever seen is the ******ed one man corp who war decs an entire alliance and demands 20 million a week to leave them alone. Dodging war decs by leaving an Alliance seems like a perfectly valid tactic to me. I think war dec griefing by people who NEVER UNDOCK maybe should be addressed first. Goes both ways. Greifers who war dec to just to greif and kill for no other reason than to kill... force those who don't know how to fight back let alone could never win to never undock. This is a 2 way street... hence why you don't see me participating in these discussions as so much... because both sides of this age old argument... frankly... suck ass. And until I can say something constructive... I don't want to beat the horse to dust as it's already long sense dead and broken. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================


Pages: [1] :: 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.