Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LOL ZZZZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
As seen in the post below Some potential changes were suggested and never implemented. With the inferno changes they made some good changes to the war mechanics, However this opened up a few problems,
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War-dec_mechanics_(CSM)
1. War is very one sided It always favors the aggressor. There is no objectives to the current wardec system Thus leading to a never ending war scenario, Pay the bill war never ends.
2. There is no max war cap, This opens up the eve world to alliances that do nothing but high sec piracy and can do it for a fee pay off concord and gank and grieving till your heats content. The war mechanic was never intended to neutralize concord. So in theory A alliance with deep enough pockets could war every corp in eve and kill anyone they wanted (except noob corps)
3 There is no cool down between a dec ending and re decing a new one from the same group. (Thus making surrender for isk useless)
4. If you have a Aliance war dec your logi from across corps can not cap chain without triggering a supect flag (bug???)
5. War duration does nothing to the cost (mutual wars should not have this effect)
I may have missed a few things and I know people are going to flame and have conflicting opinions but I wanted to start a discussion
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1277
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
1. Attacker is at a disadvantage. All else being equal, if one week's defender turned around and dec'd their former attacker they would be paying for the war and subject to the new defender bringing in allies.
2. "The war dec mechanic was never intended to neutralize concord" Actually that's exactly what it's supposed to do.
3. Surrender imposes a substantial minimum ceasefire period where the attacker cannot redec the defender. This can be gotten around by alts/alt corps, but then again so can any mechanic (including the defender "getting out" of the original war).
4. Pretty sure they can.
5. Is there any reason it should? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
LOL ZZZZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
2. "The war dec mechanic was never intended to neutralize concord" Actually that's exactly what it's supposed to do. ( It does work as intended however there is no limit on the wardecs they can have open hence rendering concord completely useless if used for ganking and with the new cost model its actualy cheep .
4. Pretty sure they can. (It does generate a supect flag as even if the alliance is deced it considers them as separate wars so its the same as if you were helping a ganker. try it your self.
1. Attacker is at a disadvantage - Depends Alliances like whors in space can effectively just keep all of empire deced and gank at will no allies want anything to do with that bastard mix
3. Surrender imposes a substantial minimum ceasefire period where the attacker cannot redec the defender. This can be gotten around by alts/alt corps, but then again so can any mechanic (including the defender "getting out" of the original war).
( I have not seen anywere the time that is the cooldown from most posts it says there is no cool down please show were this is)
5. Is there any reason it should? there used to be a war multiplyer that incressed the cost per war dec I don't think that mechanic exists any more (perpetual wardec is legitment harassment if its one sided and don't give a solid player experance ) so there should be a maximum eather defined my incress in cost resulting in a cool down that lowers the cost or a max amount of wars threashold eather way would give limits to the amount of eve players that can be ganked at one time.
Don't get me wrong I think the war mechanic works preety good better that the old crap, but has no limitations on it. I think suffers overall. |
Don Purple
Snuggle Factory
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 06:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
War dec mechanics are not broken, they work as intended. This issue is how people use them. It is nothing more than people paying to pick easy targets while allowing themselves to have minimum risk. Yes "ally's" can join the war effort but how often is that really used? Its a mechanic that allows for a lot of game play that people don't get in high sec but it also makes people that have the industrialists mindset think its just better off to sit in an NPC corp therefore limiting their play. Its a very hard thing for CCP to work on because one way or another someone is going to come out on the bad side of their choice. Maybe limit the amount of open war dec's a corp or alliance can have? Sometimes I feel its silly when I look up a merc and they have 100 active wars.
Don |
Jonah Gravenstein
Balius and Xanthus Traditional Gunsmiths
10161
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 12:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
LOL ZZZZ wrote:
1. War is very one sided It always favors the aggressor.
Welcome to warfare, it's exactly the same in real life, the strong pick on those that they perceive as weak, although it backfires on the aggressor sometimes. You'd be stupid to start a war against someone that you know is going to hand your arse to you on a plate.
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad." |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1537
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 09:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
the only problem with the war dec mechanics as they currently are is how easy and consequence free it is to completely avoid them.
If you are wardecced, you should have the ability to 'get out' of it, but it should be a serious decision with considerable trade offs. Not free, instant and meaningless.
All this whining that it favours the aggressor is laughable, the current mechanics make it impossible for the aggressor to achieve anything due to how trivial it is to avoid it entirely |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10721
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 10:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
LOL ZZZZ wrote:As seen in the post below Some potential changes were suggested and never implemented. With the inferno changes they made some good changes to the war mechanics, However this opened up a few problems, http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War-dec_mechanics_(CSM) 1. War is very one sided It always favors the aggressor.
Why would people initiate wars if they didn't think they were going to win them? What's the incentive?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:LOL ZZZZ wrote:As seen in the post below Some potential changes were suggested and never implemented. With the inferno changes they made some good changes to the war mechanics, However this opened up a few problems, http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/War-dec_mechanics_(CSM) 1. War is very one sided It always favors the aggressor. Why would people initiate wars if they didn't think they were going to win them? What's the incentive?
CCP doesn't declare any winners in wars. People can declare a war for any number of reasons "easy kills", "shut down activities", "force people to quit playing a character for a week", or rarely "good fights". As you note the aggressor is likely to succeed at their goal since otherwise they will not declare the war, but the defender might believe they have won as well.
I don't like the current war declaration system for two reasons. First, the NPC corps offer protection for anyone willing to forgo community building (or are willing to use chat channels alone). Second, there is rarely any real incentive for the defenders to fight.
Either the NPC corporations should be able to be war deced or a new form of war safe player corporation should be created. This would encourage community building. Noob corps could remain safe if they kick people out after a month. I imagine the biggest effects would be felt by various logistics organizations.
A method for the defender to end the war by fighting should be available (even if it is unlikely). This will encourage more fighting instead of logging off or joining NPC corps. |
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
157
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 18:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kadl wrote: A method for the defender to end the war by fighting should be available (even if it is unlikely). This will encourage more fighting instead of logging off or joining NPC corps.
Its called making it unfun to be at war with you, can be done in 2 ways.
1. every one leaves the corp
2. go some where else for a week (wormhole, 0.0)
3. kill them all |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Omnium Libertatem
175
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 06:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
LOL ZZZZ wrote:...Current war dec mechanics and why they are broken... Broken? I don't know about that, but they could be better.
Very often wardec are simply used by PvPers to force fights on easy targets with only moderate risk/cost; and since there is little reason for these easy targets to fight back, the smart thing is often for them to go passive. Don't give them any kills and they will go away,
Neither position is wrong based on the current game mechanics, but it could be better. I think most of the people who launch wardecs want their targets to fight back and most of the targeted Corps would like incentive to fight back, but it really isn't there in the current system. |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1297
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 07:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote: Neither position is wrong based on the current game mechanics, but it could be better. I think most of the people who launch wardecs want their targets to fight back and most of the targeted Corps would like incentive to fight back, but it really isn't there in the current system.
good post right there "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Omnium Libertatem
176
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 07:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:the only problem with the war dec mechanics as they currently are is how easy and consequence free it is to completely avoid them.
If you are wardecced, you should have the ability to 'get out' of it, but it should be a serious decision with considerable trade offs. Not free, instant and meaningless.
All this whining that it favours the aggressor is laughable, the current mechanics make it impossible for the aggressor to achieve anything due to how trivial it is to avoid it entirely In general, the aggressor wants PvP, while the defender wants to go about his carebear business. Under the current system the carebear fighting back, prolongs the war and stops him from going about his carebear business.
The Carebears goal is to survive financially and for the war to end as soon as possible. Change the mechanics so that fighting back helps the Carebear achieve these goals, and by default lets the aggressor achieves his. Give the Carebear definitive goals other than lasting out the wardec. Give them goals they can achieve to win the wardec: amount of ships destroyed or ISK value. Give them immunity from wardecs for a limited amount of time if they win the war. Something. Reward activity.
Note: I have preconceptions on this issue. Any game mechanic that rewards inactivity is questionable to me and any game mechanic that encourage players get involved in PvP is good.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10741
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 12:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:LOL ZZZZ wrote:...Current war dec mechanics and why they are broken... Broken? I don't know about that, but they could be better. Very often wardec are simply used by PvPers to force fights on easy targets with only moderate risk/cost; and since there is little reason for these easy targets to fight back, the smart thing is often for them to go passive. Don't give them any kills and they will go away, Neither position is wrong based on the current game mechanics, but it could be better. I think most of the people who launch wardecs want their targets to fight back and most of the targeted Corps would like incentive to fight back, but it really isn't there in the current system.
You're absolutely right. The key issue here is that an "incentive to fight back" is semantically equivalent to "something to lose for not fighting back". And in my experience people like the OP are implaccably opposed to any such mechanic.
Let's suppose we replace wardec fees with a new mechanic such that CONCORD require a "War Bond" to be posted by all corps; any corp who wants to declare war against another corp has to match their "War Bond". If either corp surrenders or meets some other equivalent surrender conditions (eg: reduced to 1 or fewer members on active subscribed accounts), then the bond is forfeited to the other side (after which they will have to post a new bond, which they might choose to set at a different level). Until then, the war continues. A corp can have as many open wardecs as they like, but they have to post a bond for each war and they don't get the money back until the target corp meets the surrender condition.
With this mechanic, the aggressors have an incentive to pick their targets carefully; the defenders have an incentive to fight.
If corps post a very low bond, then they'll have little to lose, but on the other hand, they make it cheap for aggressors to try their luck. Corps that post huge bonds will raise the threshold for attackers as high as they like, but the prize will be correspondingly huge. Very rich players might choose to "honeytrap" wardeccers into wasting their money by creating corps that seem like an easy target and have large bonds, and then simply never surrendering the war (If I have 100 billion ISK and you, my enemy, have 20 billion ISK, then my spending 10 bill to make you lose 10 bill is money well spent. The bounty system works on just this basis.)
This mechanic fulfills the requirements you (and the OP) have set but I can promise you that nothing like it would be accepted by him.
1 Kings 12:11
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 18:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm not sure if it's actually a 'problem' since it'd be money sunk into escrow & unusable, but that system would let someone make themselves "invulnerable" from war by simply putting up a sufficiently large bond. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10767
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 19:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
mynnna wrote:I'm not sure if it's actually a 'problem' since it'd be money sunk into escrow & unusable, but that system would let someone make themselves "invulnerable" from war by simply putting up a sufficiently large bond.
The cost of that "invulnerability" would literally be the prize.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 23:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lilan Kahn wrote:Kadl wrote: A method for the defender to end the war by fighting should be available (even if it is unlikely). This will encourage more fighting instead of logging off or joining NPC corps.
Its called making it unfun to be at war with you, can be done in 2 ways. 1. every one leaves the corp 2. go some where else for a week (wormhole, 0.0) 3. kill them all
Your first statement is to make the game unpleasant for people. That reduces participation and is a failure in game design. A game should encourage participation. 1) Result: Encouraging breaking up of communities. 2) A fine option, but if you have a wormhole why leave it for high sec? 3) Encouraging fights is a good option since it involves participating.
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Reward activity.
Exactly.
I think you are wrong and most wardecs are to get easy kills, but I don't think it matters since so long as we reward activity on both sides then the players are playing.
Malcanis wrote:War bonds...
I am going to think about this more. There may be some interesting possibilities with this or a similar idea. I really don't like the current wardec system, but not all opponents of the current system are opposed to increased warlike activity. |
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 11:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:mynnna wrote:I'm not sure if it's actually a 'problem' since it'd be money sunk into escrow & unusable, but that system would let someone make themselves "invulnerable" from war by simply putting up a sufficiently large bond. The cost of that "invulnerability" would literally be the prize.
yea lets have 0.0 alliances run around empire totaly immune to war decs what a awesome idea!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10843
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:11:00 -
[18] - Quote
Lilan Kahn wrote:Malcanis wrote:mynnna wrote:I'm not sure if it's actually a 'problem' since it'd be money sunk into escrow & unusable, but that system would let someone make themselves "invulnerable" from war by simply putting up a sufficiently large bond. The cost of that "invulnerability" would literally be the prize. yea lets have 0.0 alliances run around empire totaly immune to war decs what a awesome idea!
But they wouldn't be. The flip side of putting up an absurdly high war bond to deter casual decs against your corp is that
(1) You're effectively spending an absurdly large amount of ISK (2) You're dangling a huge prize in front of every ambitious wardeccer (3) Once you are wardecced, then you're permanently decced until one side surrenders and forfeits that absurdly high bond.
So on the one hand you've made yourself an unattractive target to small, casual wardeccers; on the other hand you've made yourself much more attractive to large, effective wardeccers.
Now taking the hypothetical example of Goonfleet putting up a 100B ISK bond, I would expect that fairly quickly there would be a corp or alliance formed for the specific purpose of declaring war on them. Individual corps wouldn't pay 100B to have a permadec vs Goons, but...
...Alliance P might
1 Kings 12:11
|
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 13:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sandbox is sandbox.
So stop forcing your risk adverse ideas on to the rest of us, war decs are the least broken thing in eve.
I'm literaly unable to find words to describe how bad your idea is, unless you think raising 15t+ isk to go at war with 0.0 alliance sounds "fun" or "engaging" |
I Am Confus
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 15:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Your idea is bad and you should feel bad. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 17:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Filling out the War Bond idea
Basic ideas 1) No wardec fees. 2) Post a War Bond of any size. 3) Aggressor must post an equivalent bond. 4) War does not end until one side surrenders. i) Surrender can be actively chosen. ii) Surrender can be an alternative condition (number of members). 5) The victor (the side which does not surrender) gains both War Bonds.
Considering some cases. 2 -> Honeytrap does not require rich players. In fact there will be multiple small industrial corporations where the real members flee and alts remain doing nothing (including not surrendering). 4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive. 4 ii -> Your description hopes that CCP will give you account information by auto surrendering based on accounts not members. I strongly doubt they will ever provide that information intentionally. For this reason I changed the condition to members. 4 ii -> A one man corp auto surrenders. How does this effect war decs against the one man industrial corporation with POSes. 5 -> Defenders would have to setup a second bond to protect themselves against a second war declaration. Methods of timing those second war declarations might cause issues. Declare with a permawar dummy corp and then declare with your weekend warriors.
Unaddressed Issues NPC Corporations are still unaddressed with this wardec idea. Incentives are provided to make a war painful, but not to encourage fighting.
Summary I like how the war bond is determined by the players. Unfortunately it seems this would lead to many unending ghost wars, and still not encourage either fighting or activity. With significant work a similar idea might resolve some of these issues. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10913
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kadl wrote: 4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive.
You mean people war-deccing a wardec corp? That's a fairly special case, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that a wardec corp will always want other war dec corps to wardec it. Having a very low bond will make it much cheaper for their targets to hire mercenaries to counter-attack, for instance.
OTOH, if they're happy for counter-decs to continue, then great; that's essentially equivalent to the current mutual wardec as neither side has any wish to surrender to the other. I don't really see what the problem is there.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10913
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kadl wrote: Summary I like how the war bond is determined by the players. Unfortunately it seems this would lead to many unending ghost wars, and still not encourage either fighting or activity. With significant work a similar idea might resolve some of these issues.
the War Bond was really a throwaway idea meant to illustrate the point that any mechanism which is strong enough to make it advantageous to fight will be resisted by people who don't like being wardecced. I think it does encourage fighting in that if you don't fight back or if you abandon the corp you forfeit the bond, and if you don't surrender, you have a permanent wardec.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kadl wrote: 4 -> This locks people into a permanent war. What about the war corp which does not care about the money, but does want a permanent high sec war? This type of corporation violates your initial assumption that the bond provides an incentive.
You mean people war-deccing a wardec corp? That's a fairly special case, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that a wardec corp will always want other war dec corps to wardec it. Having a very low bond will make it much cheaper for their targets to hire mercenaries to counter-attack, for instance. OTOH, if they're happy for counter-decs to continue, then great; that's essentially equivalent to the current mutual wardec as neither side has any wish to surrender to the other. I don't really see what the problem is there.
I was not clear in this problem. There are many corporations in High Sec who just want lots of targets on the Jita undock. Easy kills are the only thing which matters. There are a number of other corps who will maintain a wardec for spite. My evidence is the originally setup ally system which CCP decided was broken.
Malcanis wrote:the War Bond was really a throwaway idea meant to illustrate the point that any mechanism which is strong enough to make it advantageous to fight will be resisted by people who don't like being wardecced. I think it does encourage fighting in that if you don't fight back or if you abandon the corp you forfeit the bond, and if you don't surrender, you have a permanent wardec.
I understand that it is a throwaway idea for the sake of the general argument. I disagree with your argument, and believe that many more people would be happy with a wardec system which involved more actual fighting. I am working on an actual proposal so that it can be torn apart, and perhaps improved upon. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10958
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
I'm looking forward to it. Short of wardecs forcibly ejecting people from stations, I don't see how a wardec can make them fight. All you can do is make it expensive to refuse to fight (stick) and advantageous to fight (carrot). The warbond concept definitely does both of things in principle, although I'll cheerfully concede that they could be done better.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Red Templar
Viziam Amarr Empire
215
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 01:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
War Bond idea is interesting, but has flaws as i understand it. If i have to put war bond for each wardec, and corp receives 100 wardecs, its possible to bankrupt the corporation just by declaring multiple wars on them.
As for incentive to fight back. You could implement some "weighting" mechanic, that would evaluate military prowess of defender against attacker. For example number of members, sum of skill points in combat areas. Then compare defenders vs attackers and see who gets how much depending on who wins. And if attacer loses, he pays reparation fee based on this. So if small corps successfully defends, it gets more the money if their target was much larger in numbers, or their members more experienced.
Overall there is many ways to make it interesting for players to fight back, or to hire someone to join defend them. Its just a matter of difficulty to implement and possible drawbacks comparing to benefits. Its hard to find perfect balance. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |