EVE Search - The war system

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The war system

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Gijs Peerlings Interstellar General Solutions 7	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:31:25 - [1] - Quote Hello, So I was reading an old article on joystick.com about the war system (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/04/15/eve-evolved-fixing-the-wardec-system/). I must say they are right to say that it is currently as good as broken. - Mostly industrial, mining, etc. corps get war-decced - These corps mainly have no way to end the war by "Winning" and no way of defence - ISK is not a problem for corporation that declare a war. - People stay docked in station for the week. - There are many other problems all in the article linked above, it's sure worth a read. In the article there is proposed a very good solution to most of the problems, I will quote it bellow: Quote: The ideal war system would be one that forces the attackers to commit and has clear victory conditions. It should make small corps engaging large entities riskier and encourage people to fight a war rather than dock up for a week. To start a war, the attacker should have to place the war fee into a war command structure that would be in space, orbiting a planet, or at a starbase. If the defending corp destroys this structure, it would collect the war fee as a prize, and the war would end. This way a larger corp that costs a lot more to wardec would have more incentive to fight, and small alt corps wouldn't be able to reasonably pursue a war against large alliances. If the defender wants to surrender the war, he would pay a surrender fee equal to the war fee and the war then ends. This would make declaring war on small corps less profitable as they can surrender quite cheaply, encouraging war corps to take on the largest target they think they can handle in order to get a larger reward. The attacker could also surrender and forfeit the war fee, preventing the defender from dragging out the war indefinitely. In this system, the weekly war fee would be thrown out the window and be replaced with a larger one-off fee. This means a war could only be ended by either side completing its victory condition: the attacker's command structure's destruction or either party's surrender. Ofcourse this would need some work, but I must admit I personally hate the current system, so I hope something will change. I hope people share my opinion, Gijs
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 229	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:36:48 - [2] - Quote This just stops wars being stupidly biased in one way and makes them stupidly biased in another. Psychotic Monk's CSM platform had all sorts of good ideas around such things, sadly he went off the deep end and started referring to himself as a content creator. That never ends well Its a good a place as any to start if you wanna fix wardecs though. Travelling at the speed of love.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1966	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:38:25 - [3] - Quote Having a way for defenders to end things early is the concept im leaning to. The exact mechanic on the other hand im undecided on. Structure Bashes? which many believe are boring Control Timers? which means spawning of sites per wardec and that could be messy also i dont know if there will be another territorial control mechanic for sov in the new sov system. It may be possible to steal it for war decs, whatever it may be. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 57	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:19:11 - [4] - Quote It is obvious from the constant flow of ideas on how to force people into fighting that the current system is in need of major rework. I know for a fact that from the side of those being WD the system does not work. With these facts it should be obvious to everyone that we need a major re-think/re-work of the war dec system, as Ix Method says this idea is a s good if not better than any other to start working from.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 6	Posted - 2014.11.01 07:33:21 - [5] - Quote The war system works quite well when both sides are willing to fight. I would argue it is carebearism that is the real culprit here. Second place on the blame list goes to the mentality of starting a corp at all when you aren't willing to defend it. More and better incentives would be nice but the culture within EVE is what needs to change. Corps should be able to defend themselves and be willing to do so. I have a hard time believing some random group of 10 AFK miners is going to feel any incentive, ever, to switch into combat ships and fight PVP experienced players. All that said the new rules against AWOX might help to create bigger "superindy" corps, where the pride of thirty carebears in a TeamSpeak channel could actually motivate them to shoot spaceships.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 231	Posted - 2014.11.01 08:35:28 - [6] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The war system works well when both sides are willing to fight. I would argue it is carebearism that is the real culprit here. Second place on the blame list goes to the mentality of starting a corp at all when you aren't willing to defend it. You're right upto a point but highsec corps as is are basically glorified chatrooms. There's no nailed-down infrastructure to invest in, no reasonable need to tie up loads of materials in indy jobs that are worth protecting, etc, etc. While what you say is undoubtedly part of what makes wardecs such a ballache its hard to be too harsh when the pragmatic course of action is to simply ditch your Corp and start Corp. where you can do your thing safe from bads. In the end the mechanic relies on is the weaker sides e-honour/butthurt/irrationality to make something happen which is why wars have never satisfactorily worked, weren't fixed by Inferno and probably can't be until corps change. Travelling at the speed of love.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 437	Posted - 2014.11.01 08:45:44 - [7] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The war system works well when both sides are willing to fight. I would argue it is carebearism that is the real culprit here. [snip] I have a hard time believing some random group of 10 AFK miners is going to feel any incentive, ever, to switch into combat ships and fight PVP experienced players. There is a distinction between carebearing and good common sense. Things the aggressers have in their favour: >Know it is coming so can pre logistic supply (if it is even needed as they will have a plethora of out of corp alts) >Enemy already pre scouted >neutral OGBs >Actually combat pilots There are more, of course, but unless the defenders are decent combat pilots with decent skills/OGB/experienced logi they are going to get stomped. Fighting in a high sec war as an industrialist is about as smart as jumping your freighter into low. Hiring mercs is about the only option and it's not like they couldnt be in league with the aggressors just to get the isk. The smartest thing to do is to avoid it. To call it carebearing is thoroughly disingenuous, unless you knowling YOLO into camped gates solo and hope for the best in an industrial.
Adrie Atticus Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion 472	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:20:04 - [8] - Quote Fastest fix to current wardec mechanics: Non-affiliated parties taking part in the fight inherit the base flags. Aggression in hisec causes the criminal timer, but if you're in war with the target, that flag is suppressed into a mutual aggression timer. A non-affiliated 3rd party (usually logi) should inherit the criminal timer from the party which is being assisted as they're not part of the war and cannot suppress the criminal timer into an aggression timer.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1968	Posted - 2014.11.01 12:52:34 - [9] - Quote Ix Method wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The war system works well when both sides are willing to fight. I would argue it is carebearism that is the real culprit here. Second place on the blame list goes to the mentality of starting a corp at all when you aren't willing to defend it. You're right upto a point but highsec corps as is are basically glorified chatrooms. There's no nailed-down infrastructure to invest in, no reasonable need to tie up loads of materials in indy jobs that are worth protecting, etc, etc. While what you say is undoubtedly part of what makes wardecs such a ballache its hard to be too harsh when the pragmatic course of action is to simply ditch your Corp and start Corp. where you can do your thing safe from bads. In the end the mechanic relies on the weaker sides e-honour/butthurt/irrationality to make something happen which is why wars have never satisfactorily worked, weren't fixed by Inferno and probably can't be until corps change. And it should be doable to make 'glorified chat rooms' by having corps that have no assets. Just a common chat channel, mailing list, NPC tax, etc etc. logi should not get a criminal timer. a suspect timer is better, an aggression timer to the opposing corp for the duration of the war would be perfect. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 31	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:33:33 - [10] - Quote afkalt wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The war system works well when both sides are willing to fight. I would argue it is carebearism that is the real culprit here. [snip] I have a hard time believing some random group of 10 AFK miners is going to feel any incentive, ever, to switch into combat ships and fight PVP experienced players. There is a distinction between carebearing and good common sense. Things the aggressers have in their favour: >Know it is coming so can pre logistic supply (if it is even needed as they will have a plethora of out of corp alts) >Enemy already pre scouted >neutral OGBs >Actually combat pilots There are more, of course, but unless the defenders are decent combat pilots with decent skills/OGB/experienced logi they are going to get stomped. Fighting in a high sec war as an industrialist is about as smart as jumping your freighter into low. Hiring mercs is about the only option and it's not like they couldnt be in league with the aggressors just to get the isk. The smartest thing to do is to avoid it. To call it carebearing is thoroughly disingenuous, unless you knowling YOLO into camped gates solo and hope for the best in an industrial. Hence my point: "Corps should be able to defend themselves and be willing to do so". The group of 10 miners shouldn't be a corp at all, for many of the reasons you've stated. They belong in NPC corps. Perhaps it was steep to make a blanket claim of carebearism but for every corp that's just unskilled mining and freighter pilots, there's another corp with high SP mission runners that just aren't willing to fleet up when the time comes.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 248	Posted - 2014.11.05 09:13:53 - [11] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Hence me point: "Corps should be able to defend themselves and be willing to do so". The group of 10 miners shouldn't have been a corp at all, for many of the reasons you've stated... they belong in NPC corps. The mentality behind starting the corp to begin with should involve a commitment to defend yourself against said experienced combat pilots. I can get behind changes that expand social and community tools outside of corps to compensate for those who don't fit that bill. That's only really true in the current context, hopefully the new corp system will provide proper tools for corps to actually work together, perhaps even different types of corporations depending on their activities. At that point the one size fits all highsec corp that falls apart at the first wardec might be a thing of the past. It's pretty much impossible to find a starting point for a wardec fix until we know what types of entities will be fighting them. Which is a shame, cause they're boring as all shite atm. Travelling at the speed of love.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 58	Posted - 2014.11.05 16:02:12 - [12] - Quote Let's just be honest here and face the simple fact that high sec war decs are a failed concept that is made worse by the war dec corps/players themselves. If you really want a fight WD those who are willing to fight like the other WD or Merc corps in the game or go to low/nul. Continue to WD the average high sec corp and they will always find ways to avoid the combat that they do not want to participate in. Or they will simply bail to an NPC that you cannot WD, either way it is bad for you. Changing the way HS corps work will not help you. Those who are not willing to fight to defend never will, so the only thing you do is limit the game play options these players have by forcing them to stay in an NPC. Since you cannot WD an NPC how does this help you? Now this specifically. McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: [Hence me point: "Corps should be able to defend themselves and be willing to do so". The group of 10 miners shouldn't have been a corp at all, for many of the reasons you've stated... they belong in NPC corps Why ? They pay their monthly fees to be able to play, if they want to form a corp that is their decision to make not yours. How does FORCING them into an NPC help you? The only thing this idea serves is to limit the game play options of people that are paying their monthly cost of admission. McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The mentality behind starting the corp to begin with should involve a commitment to defend yourself against said experienced combat pilots. I can get behind changes that expand social and community tools outside of corps to compensate for those who don't fit that bill. If they want to form a corp because they think it is cool, or simply because they want to explore that game play option that is there right, they pay the monthly fee that says so. How does forcing them to stay in an NPC help you? High sec WD are a failed concept because there is nothing to really fight over, the only exceptions would be a planet for a POCO or a moon for a POS. Yet the WD filed over either of these is extremely rare, so what is the reason that HS WD exist at all? The only real reason HS WD exist is to give those PvP players who do not want to go to low or nul a legitimate way to blow things up without experiencing the wrath of Concord. As long as this is the only reason for the existence of HS WD then there always will be and always needs to be a way those who do not want to fight to avoid the conflict. In the end this all comes down to a simple and inescapable fact of human nature. There are those who enjoy the thrill of pixel space ship combat against other people and there are those that do not. Those who do should seek out like minded individuals and proceed to have a fun blowing each other up. WD those who do not want to fight and they will always find a way to avoid it no matter how you change the rules, or how you change the game. Ultimately they will avoid it by quitting if that is the only option.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 250	Posted - 2014.11.05 17:27:05 - [13] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Let's just be honest here and face the simple fact that high sec war decs are a failed concept that is made worse by the war dec corps/players themselves. If you really want a fight WD those who are willing to fight like the other WD or Merc corps in the game or go to low/nul. Continue to WD the average high sec corp and they will always find ways to avoid the combat that they do not want to participate in. Or they will simply bail to an NPC that you cannot WD, either way it is bad for you. Changing the way HS corps work will not help you. Those who are not willing to fight to defend never will, so the only thing you do is limit the game play options these players have by forcing them to stay in an NPC. Since you cannot WD an NPC how does this help you? This is all well and good in your average themepark MMO where one thing doesn't really impact on another. But if people want to participate in a competitive, active economy they just can't have a little haven of happy. Sorry. You can't really suggest such people will hide in purgatory forever either - some do, granted but plenty of others freak out at the thought of paying 11% tax and if corp-related buffs (ESS, structures, whatever) become part of Corps 2.0 those numbers will only grow. A wardec system and the associated tears are inevitable but with a bit of joined-up thinking there's no reason why it should wallow it the pit of pointless grief we're all in now. Donnachadh wrote: Why ? They pay their monthly fees to be able to play, if they want to form a corp that is their decision to make not yours. Subbing gives you the right to log on and accumulate SP, nothing more. To suggest otherwise in a 'sandbox' (TM) is absurd. If you want the benefits a corp brings you have to accept you're in a competitive environment and everything that entails. Travelling at the speed of love.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1979	Posted - 2014.11.06 01:06:45 - [14] - Quote @Donnachadh Your missing the point of wardecs. They arent for 'gud fights'. They arent for honor. They arent for area denial. They arent for territorial control. They aren't for economic benefit. They arent for assassinations. They arent for kill board padding. They arent for greifing. They arent for the love of station and gate camping.... They are for *any* and *all* of the above. They are for whatever you want them to be for. Wardecs arent a failed concept, the concept is actually essential to hi-sec conflict, which is essential for adding risk, and therefore value, to hi-sec. They do exactly what they are supposed to and that is to allow one corp to shoot another, nothing more, nothing less. Without wardecs hi-sec becomes even more effortless and, as a result, even more worthless. The biggest issue surrounding wardecs is not the war dec mechanic itself, not in any way. The entire issue is to do with corps and people forming corps without appreciating the risks involved. And it is definitely with corp mechanics that this issue can be solved. So... Why does everyone want to be in a corp so much? because its really the only easy way in the game to get together with other players, socialise and play together. Often a corp is just created amongst a group of friends without any real purpose and no serious inclination to use the full benefits of a player corp. All they want to do is hang out together and maybe have a name and banner for their group. In such a case its kinda harsh that such a group is exposed to the war dec system. So why not just create a mechanic that has all the social aspects of a corporation (a name, ticker, banner, chat channel, mail list, calender, bullet in board, member list, killboard info, contacts, roles etc) but none of the benefits that are influential to the sandbox (POS's and POCO's etc) and with this reduced functionality, plus standard NPC tax, there are reduced risks (no war decs, no Awoxing)? It is in fact the perfect solution to the biggest issue with war decs and i suspect it can be easily done as what is essentially achieved is a player corp with all the functions and safety of an NPC corp. Hopefully it will lead to players who want to be in a corp making a more informed decision, whether they just want to play with others (but dont really want to get stomped), or if they are looking to make use of serious corp assets (and must accept the risks that come with it). The grey area comes when deciding on whether they should have some corp assets and functions that are not directly influential to the sandbox but are certainly benefits (e.g. corp contracts, corp hangars, corp wallet and, by extension, corp tax on top of NPC tax and market orders, NPC standings etc). Beyond that, the only changes id like made with the dec system is allowing allies on both sides and a way for the defender to end a dec early or make the attackers and their neutral logi commit more rather than playing guerrilla wardecs online. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1979	Posted - 2014.11.06 01:12:04 - [15] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Why ? They pay their monthly fees to be able to play, if they want to form a corp that is their decision to make not yours. Subbing gives you the right to log on and accumulate SP, nothing more. To suggest otherwise in a 'sandbox' (TM) is absurd. If you want the benefits a corp brings you have to accept you're in a competitive environment and everything that entails. +1000 EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 36	Posted - 2014.11.06 02:51:04 - [16] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: If you really want a fight WD those who are willing to fight like the other WD or Merc corps in the game or go to low/nul. Continue to WD the average high sec corp and they will always find ways to avoid the combat that they do not want to participate in. Or they will simply bail to an NPC that you cannot WD, either way it is bad for you. There are many reasons to wardec people besides looking for simple PVP. - Removal of POS and POCO - Revenge or a resolution for beef - Driving a group out of a given system or set of systems - Attempting to disband a group through persistent wardecs - Piracy through surrender offers Donnachadh wrote: Why ? They pay their monthly fees to be able to play, if they want to form a corp that is their decision to make not yours. How does FORCING them into an NPC help you? The only thing this idea serves is to limit the game play options of people that are paying their monthly cost of admission. Donnachadh wrote: If they want to form a corp because they think it is cool, or simply because they want to explore that game play option that is there right, they pay the monthly fee that says so. How does forcing them to stay in an NPC help you? I never said they should be forced into an NPC corp. They can do whatever they want. I am suggesting they stay in an NPC corp and for good reason: They aren't willing to defend their corp when the time comes. If they want to drop corp or stay docked up that's their choice. My only issue is that they typically then complain to CCP about it and try to get the WD system changed to suit their own needs. No. If you can't handle the choices you are given when at war, don't form a corp. Donnachadh wrote: In the end this all comes down to a simple and inescapable fact of human nature. There are those who enjoy the thrill of pixel space ship combat against other people and there are those that do not. Those who do should seek out like minded individuals and proceed to have a fun blowing each other up. WD those who do not want to fight and they will always find a way to avoid it no matter how you change the rules, or how you change the game. Ultimately they will avoid it by quitting if that is the only option. Luckily for them it's not the only option. PVE-only players have the tools to join up with one another. They can create a thread in the Corporation Recruitment section of the forum, where they invite players to join their group without using the corp system, but instead using a password protected channel. There are also groups of players who use a string of half a dozen corps and hop between them as wardecs come in, allowing them to stay in corp together without the risk of PVP through wardec.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 58	Posted - 2014.11.06 15:53:18 - [17] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Subbing gives you the right to log on and accumulate SP, nothing more. Paying the subscription fee gives people the right to do whatever the games allows as long as it has interest for them and that includes forming a corp and then refusing to un-dock to "defend it". Daichi Yamato wrote: Your missing the point of wardecs. They arent for 'gud fights'. They arent for honor. They arent for area denial. They arent for territorial control. They aren't for economic benefit. They arent for assassinations. They arent for kill board padding. They arent for greifing. They arent for the love of station and gate camping.... They are for *any* and *all* of the above. They are for whatever you want them to be for. I am not missing the point. In fact I stated this in my last post but you are choosing to ignore it so here it is again. "The only real reason HS WD exist is to give those PvP players who do not want to go to low or nul a legitimate way to blow things up without experiencing the wrath of Concord." Sorry for this style of quoting my own post I seem to have exceeded some quote limit and I believe the others are more important and the traditional style of quote. Daichi Yamato wrote: The biggest issue surrounding wardecs is not the war dec mechanic itself, not in any way. The entire issue is to do with corps and people forming corps without appreciating the risks involved. And it is definitely with corp mechanics that this issue can be solved. I disagree the single largest problem with HS WD in a general sense are these idiotic beliefs that people should be willing to fight simply because you or someone else chooses to WD them, or that they should be willing to fight simply because they want to from a social club in game. And like it or not forming a player owned corp is a fundamental requirement for the role playing gamers in our midst and yes they have as much right to participate in EVE as you or I do. Daichi Yamato wrote: Why does everyone want to be in a corp so much? because its really the only easy way in the game to get together with other players, socialise and play together. Often a corp is just created amongst a group of friends without any real purpose and no serious inclination to use the full benefits of a player corp. All they want to do is hang out together and maybe have a name and banner for their group. They pay the monthly subscription and they have the right to form a corp even if all they want it for is social club in EVE. I am not going to quote the text on how you think these NPC super corps should be set up, those interested can find and read it above, here is my response to it. Since this would make an even larger percentage of the player base immune to the threat of or an actual WD I find myself wondering what the advantage there is in this is for the HS WD players/corps. And I wonder how many of them outside of this discussion would support it. If your idea was introduced into the game how does this change things for those who set up a player corp as we know them today? What additional risks would they face? What penalties would they face if they chose not to fight in a WD. To compensate for any or all of the additional risks what additional benefits would they get? As I have stated here and in numerous other topics on HS WD you are still ignoring the final and the most important deciding factor, each players right to chose not to fight. To be blunt if a player decides they will not fight there is nothing you or CCP can do to change that and anything that is done to try and force them to fight may cause them to leave the game. I will not debate here if that would be good or bad I will leave that to each person that reads this to decide. My opinion is that the loss of any subscriber who is going about their time in game and enjoying themselves is valuable and CCP should do everything within reason to keep them in game. However CCP should not and cannot cater to these players in a way that adversely impacts others in the game. Daichi Yamato wrote: Beyond that, the only changes id like made with the dec system is allowing allies on both sides and a way for the defender to end a dec early or make the attackers and their neutral logi commit more rather than playing guerrilla wardecs online. And this is something that we can agree on. Even though I am not a HS WD player I have always believed the current allies rules for WD are idiotic in the extreme and they need to be addressed so they better balance this aspect of WD. As you state there needs to be a way where the defenders can clearly WIN thus ending the WD early and I see this as the single biggest change that could be made to improve the current WD system. I would even take this one step further, currently there is no clear WINNER in any WD unless you count a destroyed POS/POCO or numbers on a kill board. So I would amend this suggestion and say there needs to be clear win/lose goals established for both sides and as soon as those goals are achieved by either side the war ends immediately. Despite what some may think I always have and always will support some form of WD activity in HS, it is a viable and valuable play style that needs to be maintained in the game. What I am against is the current system that stacks all of the advantages on the aggressors side and all of the disadvantages onto the defenders. Without being draconian to either side how do we change this situation so that is offers more or a better balance for both sides? And yes restricting the game play options of a group of high sec players simply because they do not want to participate in what they consider a useless waste of time and ISK is a draconian measure.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 253	Posted - 2014.11.06 16:31:04 - [18] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Ix Method wrote: Subbing gives you the right to log on and accumulate SP, nothing more. Paying the subscription fee gives people the right to do whatever the games allows as long as it has interest for them and that includes forming a corp and then refusing to un-dock to "defend it". ... Fair enough, if you wish to get overly obtuse subbing gives you the right to make use of the game mechanics. It does not give anyone the right to demand consequences of that gameplay be exactly to their liking. Donnachadh wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Your missing the point of wardecs..... I am not missing the point. In fact I stated this in my last post but you are choosing to ignore it so here it is again. "The only real reason HS WD exist is to give those PvP players who do not want to go to low or nul a legitimate way to blow things up without experiencing the wrath of Concord." Sorry for this style of quoting my own post I seem to have exceeded some quote limit and I believe the others are more important and the traditional style of quote. Repeating the part where you miss the point doesn't help your case A fairly basic rule of balancing any sort of competitive environment - MMO, game, sport, yodeling contest - is that if everyone wants similar rewards, they must take similar risks otherwise the contest becomes biased and therefore meaningless. And this does not change regardless of whether you cough up -ú10/month for the chance to join in. If there was to be a new sort of 'safe corp' free from the peril of wardecs that have a 50% bounty tax, 50% lower mining yields, industry that took twice as long, etc. most of us would get over it. We'd write such people off as a lost cause and leave them to the gankers and thieves that are so inclined. Hell, incursions would probably still pay out too much isk. But if you want to compete with us for selling loot, buying Plex, building items that potentially takes isk out of our pockets on similar terms you have to accept the same risks as the rest of us. An area without meaningful consequences instantly becomes the only place its worth making isk and the reasons for ever leaving it gradually diminish. Those little bears with no interest in anyone else would happily potter along until they got bored with the PVE (not a long term strategy in Eve's case) but the people that give the game colour - from every part of the game, not just highsec - would gradually drift away because there's no point in trying to compete. Conflict without competition is empty and frankly unlikely to keep anyone hanging around for another ten years. You're not wrong in that there's a choice to be made here. The changes to corps, and by extension everything that spirals off them such as wardecs are pretty much a **** or get off the pot moment for CCP. They've tried (with mixed results) to cater to both sides of the coin but NPC corps are broken, corps as cooperative entities are broken and corps as competitive entities aren't much better. Something needs to be done - if that's consequence-free isk making so be it but I suspect many of those who make the game worth playing won't be around to care. Travelling at the speed of love.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1982	Posted - 2014.11.06 17:55:14 - [19] - Quote theres nothing wrong with not fighting. and my proposal does not force anything on anyone. it in fact allows you to form a social club without having to worry about decs. but if you want the benefits of a POS and/or other corp assets, you can be decced. chose which one is for you. one has less benefits, less risk and NPC tax. The other has extra benefits but with it extra risks. if you still want to form a full asset corp and you still want to dock up everytime your wardecced then fine, you can still do that. but dont you dare **** up the forums with your whining when you do eventually get decced. that is my idea in a nut shell. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1356	Posted - 2014.11.06 19:28:24 - [20] - Quote The wardec system beign broken come 100% from the fact that a high-sec corp is not worth defending in 99.99999999999% of the cases. The people not directly interested in PEW aren't going to go PEW for the empty shell that a corp is...
Sgt Soulless Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2014.11.06 19:32:03 - [21] - Quote The problem is really that the only reason to declare war is so you can bypass concord and shoot at players in high-sec. Why bother with war if you're fighting other PvP corps that probably spend time outside high-sec anyway? Well, you wouldn't. Any PvP corp that war decs a high-sec industrial corp is just looking to pad a kill board with meaningless indy kills. They're not actually looking for PvP fights. The problem isn't that "carebear" corps don't fight back. It's that PvP corps don't actually want a fight either. Nobody is going "Hmm...I never realized this corp of miners wouldn't fight back more. Wonder why they don't have a years worth of PvP skills trained." Solution: Concord does not protect the aggressor of a war from anyone or anything during the war. Meaning that if you declare war, high-sec becomes null-sec for you. Anyone can attack you and concord will not interfere (shouldn't be a problem since you're a super awesome PvP corp that can defend itself from vastly superior numbers and firepower, right?). If you want PvP fights, I guarantee this will generate them. But lets be honest. Nobody wardecing high-sec corps is actually looking for combat. They just want to sit on a hub station and kill indy ships while fapping about how awesome they are at "fighting" mining barges. Also, most hi-sec players probably wouldn't bother forming corps if you weren't forced to do so in order to setup a POS or share a wallet or a cargo hanger.
Jur Tissant The TERRA Guardians of Serenity 277	Posted - 2014.11.06 19:36:06 - [22] - Quote I don't mind the ability to war dec anyone, anywhere, anytime. I just have a problem when wardecs drag on for weeks, because even if you're not sitting docked your gameplay is still majorly affected for only a few million isk per week (no trade hubs, super paranoid mining/hauling, no mission running (maybe that's a plus)). Make wardecs prohibitively expensive to extend beyond a week, for example double the ISK requirement each week (50mil, then 100 mil, then 200mil, etc.). This will allow merc groups to have their high-sec thrills without being able to throttle a single corp for a month. Quote: "Corps should be able to defend themselves and be willing to do so". The group of 10 miners shouldn't have been a corp at all, for many of the reasons you've stated... they belong in NPC corps. I disagree. Corp play should be encouraged at all times, for all professions, in any case where players want to participate in any aspect of EVE. The only people who belong in NPC corps are the ones who willingly choose to be there because they don't want to deal with decs. They should be required to deal with the omnipresence of PvP, including war decs, but shouldn't have to be able to shoot back just to play (as if aggressors pick corps which can defend themselves anyways).
Marsan 248	Posted - 2014.11.06 19:50:40 - [23] - Quote The basic issue with the war system are threefold: A) There is no reason for the defender to fight. You can't earn isk by fighting back. B) Most High Sec corps are in HS to avoid pvp, and won't fight no matter what war system does. They will go back to the NPC corps or quit. C) The defender has no way to win the war, and get back to doing what you did before. Boring the attacker works better than fighting to get rid of the war. What the war system needs is more reason for the defenders to fight, and a way to opt out for true carebears that don't want to fight with a mild penalty to give fence sitters a reason to fight. 1) The defender needs a way to win and end the war. 2) A defender who wins needs to recoup isk from the aggressor. 3) There needs to be a way to opt of wars entirely for corps with a penalty less or equal than being in the NPC corp. Otherwise HS wars are going to consist of gankers in trade hubs and pipes ganking idiots and newbies, while the rest of us corp hop, stop playing or vacation in LS/NS/WS. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 707	Posted - 2014.11.06 20:27:05 - [24] - Quote Buff POS, so they become the castle that you want to knock down. POS should be the grind you are forced to shoot, the defender needs to defend it and what comes with that POS....better labs, shorter times, lower costs ect ect. Problem solved. Buff Faction warfare so it pays better. Anything other than "BLAH BLAH I PAID, THEREFORE I AM IN THE RIGHT AND THIS PERSON NEEDS TO DIE!" forgetting in the EULA....nothing says you get your fight just because you want it but avoid the risk CONCORD giving you a colonoscopy exam with a shovel. Everyone is treated equal in the game, but everyone is also a possible target. Shooting miners....not PVP per say...more like clay pigeon shooting easy targets or a paper target on the wall with a shot gun. Just gank the hell out of them, why waste the same cost for a week of boredom when you could fit like 4-5 Blaster Cats for 50 million and just destroy them; There is no PVP flag for immunity. Sec status doesn't hurt anybody. Problem solved, they are only shooting rocks with the most despised profession and most useless ships to the point CCP should just remove them from game without refunding the SP back (CCP can seed minerals and flux the price as much as they want to cause chaos to the market). Want to make a difference....try inviting the mining and industrial corp to your alliance than defending them, build an empire, move to low, attract other players to attack you,....oh wait, most people thought this was COD: Medal of Halo Strike respawn combat with no consequences and have low intelligence looking for XBOX achievements on their killboards.....you don't need to shoot everybody, you do need a support base which is also where you enemy will strike at for easy kills, you would just have to defend them. Now you can get your wars on. And you are in highsec...which means....you are risk adverse except for the target you chose to fight....cause nobody can attack you unless they chose to WD you....odd from your point of view once you are looking in a mirror. Gank or GTFO out of highsec if you want a fight. CONCORD is just a brake to prevent all out chaos, no one could undock let alone do anything at all without highsec, its the last area to retreat too should low/null/wormhole fail on you; cancel sub, good by EVE. Its not a respawn shooter, its a game of consequences, can still shoot in highsec regardless but the local Omnipotent non-faction police will beat you down with that colonoscopy exam and all you have to do is accept that the shovel won't hurt....much
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 339	Posted - 2014.11.06 22:51:58 - [25] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: All that said the new rules against AWOX might help to create bigger "superindy" corps, where the broken pride and hurt feelings of fourty carebears in a TeamSpeak channel could actually motivate them to shoot spaceships. The only way this is reality is if there is more of an incentive. If the war is guaranteed to end at the end of a week if the defender is "winning" in ISK killed it would probably work.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1983	Posted - 2014.11.08 05:13:22 - [26] - Quote this thread got very butt hurt on the second page lol. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"

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.