EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
20 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

War decs : not achieving objectives

Author
#21 - 2017-02-26 18:53:24 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun.

Where is this coming from?

I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics.



"CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? "

Relevant part underlined.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Caldari State
#22 - 2017-02-26 18:58:18 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun.

Where is this coming from?

I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics.



"CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? "

Relevant part underlined.

Said where?

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

#23 - 2017-02-26 19:55:15 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Like all game mechanics, the objective of war decs is to have fun.

Where is this coming from?

I've never seen CCP define this as an objective of the wardec mechanics.



"CCP Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure? "

Relevant part underlined.

Said where?


The 2012 Winter Minutes.


From the same discussion:

CCP SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.

Wars are basically fine. They do what they are suppose to do: allow conflict to take place in highsec as the game is intended to work. There are some holes to plug, perhaps some tweaks to be made, and the whole game would benefit from some proper conflict drivers/objectives, but wars as a mechanism to remove NPCs from the equation of fighting in highsec works just dandy.

And can be fun to boot.
EvE-Scout Enclave
#24 - 2017-02-26 20:16:47 UTC
Charley Varrick wrote:
Akane Togenada wrote:
Isn´t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn´t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced.


Depends. If the war dec'ing corp has hundreds of members and unlimited resorces and the defender corp is a small, 10 man corp struggling to get ahead...I'd say advising your corp to stay docked is a wise move. Now 2 small corps fighting over system belts...That's a different story. That is what war dec's were meant for.


I don´t think War Deccs where only meant to be used like you say and as for small Corps getting 'bullied' by the big guys there are a few options I believe are preferable to the dock up one:

Option 1: Get friends and band together for protection.
Option 2: Get a big alliance to take you in under their protection. If you prove to be competent and provide them with a usable service it might be possible.
Option 3: If you have no structures to defend (and a small corp shouldn´t) just pack up and leave the system. I have been through quite a few empty high sec systems just waiting to get 'colonized'.
Option 4: Though it's a bit silly just disbanding the Corp and reforming it again is also preferable to staying docked.

Finally I do belive that the vast majority of high sec wars are not declared to evict Corps from a certain area but to get kills. If a War decced Corp stays away from Trade Hubs and their surrounding area they should be mostly fine.
#25 - 2017-02-26 20:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
If you have trouble with war decs or the war dec mechanics just leave high sec. The rest of EVE is constantly at war with everyone unless they're blue (and even then sometimes). Seriously.

The ONLY use for war decs is in high sec. Nah don't give me crap about low sec, no one in low sec is worried about gate guns or sec status. No one. You tank it, or you bring logi, or both.

It's high sec carebears who cry about war decs. High sec structures can be targeted. And carebears who forget their renter corp/nullsec alliance is under war dec and get popped on the way to or from Jita because they're too dumb or forgot to use a neutral hauling alt.

Seriously, this affects so few people it's laughable. And to those few who complain about it - what, you think "high sec" means absolutely risk and consequence free? No, your stuff can be popped in high sec too. At least you get 24 hours' notice. Don't like it, take everything out of your POS/Citadel and put it in someone else's or an NPC station. Too lazy to do that? THEN YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

Or you could always, I dunno - defend your stuff.
#26 - 2017-02-26 22:22:56 UTC
I don't think the OP was suggesting the removal of wardecs. The problem is that there's nothing to really fight over in high-sec. You can't stake a claim to asteroid or ice belts, and Citadels and Engineering Complexes are incredibly tough for any small group to take down. POS aren't really much better. And if you don't like wardecs you can just go neutral and join an NPC corporation and pay the tax.

The problem is that no one really wants to fight in high-sec because wardecs are almost always a one-sided proposition, and there's nothing really to be gained in fighting back.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Caldari State
#27 - 2017-02-26 22:35:34 UTC
Akane Togenada wrote:
Charley Varrick wrote:
Akane Togenada wrote:
Isn´t the main flaw with war deccs that many 'newbie corps' have horrible leadership that doesn´t want to lead their members but instead dock up whenever they get war decced.


Depends. If the war dec'ing corp has hundreds of members and unlimited resorces and the defender corp is a small, 10 man corp struggling to get ahead...I'd say advising your corp to stay docked is a wise move. Now 2 small corps fighting over system belts...That's a different story. That is what war dec's were meant for.


I don´t think War Deccs where only meant to be used like you say and as for small Corps getting 'bullied' by the big guys there are a few options I believe are preferable to the dock up one:

Option 1: Get friends and band together for protection.
Option 2: Get a big alliance to take you in under their protection. If you prove to be competent and provide them with a usable service it might be possible.
Option 3: If you have no structures to defend (and a small corp shouldn´t) just pack up and leave the system. I have been through quite a few empty high sec systems just waiting to get 'colonized'.
Option 4: Though it's a bit silly just disbanding the Corp and reforming it again is also preferable to staying docked.

Finally I do belive that the vast majority of high sec wars are not declared to evict Corps from a certain area but to get kills. If a War decced Corp stays away from Trade Hubs and their surrounding area they should be mostly fine.



1. If a new small corp had more than 10 friends they wouldn't be a 10 man corp now would they?
2. There is absolutely nothing a new small corp has to offer a big alliance.
3. Sure. Just pack up and move...I'm sure the players lurking outside the station waiting for you to undock would agree.
4. there are people in this very thread who think that shouldn't even be possible.
#28 - 2017-02-26 22:41:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
I had strange wardec recently. Guy in some fairly big corp was mining in orca while wardecced and lost it to some russian player who was in single man corp. He left or was kicked out after losing it. Made his own corp.
Then he wardecced me, and did not even said why, blocked me even. He was nowhere to find while wardec was in effect.
#29 - 2017-02-26 22:45:39 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The only thing I can see to help the issue: Limit war decs to those groups of players who enjoy that style of game play. One way to do this: A corp can declare itself neutral. Doing so means it cannot be in a war, not as an attacker, defender, or ally. For balance it also means it cannot be in an alliance, or have any in-space structures (POS, citadel, complex, etc.)

Idea worth developing, weak sides of it?

Black Pedro wrote:
Wars are basically fine. They do what they are suppose to do: allow conflict to take place in highsec as the game is intended to work.

They allow confilct but far from fine. I left E-uni back when I started because of constant wardecc. I was tired of alt playing and docking when reds were showing. Most of the time it's single sided gameplay, and best conterplay is to not undock. If I won't undock and don't want to play on alt the best I could do is to find another game. Leaving E-uni and creating my one man corp was the best decision ever, no hub camp since then.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

EvE-Scout Enclave
#30 - 2017-02-26 22:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Akane Togenada
Charley Varrick wrote:
1. If a new small corp had more than 10 friends they wouldn't be a 10 man corp now would they?
2. There is absolutely nothing a new small corp has to offer a big alliance.
3. Sure. Just pack up and move...I'm sure the players lurking outside the station waiting for you to undock would agree.
4. there are people in this very thread who think that shouldn't even be possible.


1. I was obviously talking about several small corps joining forces but yeah you are right that it would be better to just make a larger corp or formal alliance instead.
2. If you say so ... when I look at the bigger alliances there are always atleast a few of their member corps that are <10 players.
3. I obviously meant they should move before having the station camped. There's also a thing called jump clones that should be used to set up back up locations for the members if their main staging system does become camped.
4. I'm one of them and just included the option since it currently is one possible way of making the war go away.

I also can´t stress enough that high-sec war deccers usually don´t go after their targets but instead camp Trade Hubs and adjecent systems. In other words the best way to handle a war decc if it's from one of the usual suspects is to mostly ignore it and keep away from the main trade hubs.
#31 - 2017-02-26 23:24:51 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
If you have trouble with war decs or the war dec mechanics just leave high sec. The rest of EVE is constantly at war with everyone unless they're blue (and even then sometimes). Seriously.

The ONLY use for war decs is in high sec. Nah don't give me crap about low sec, no one in low sec is worried about gate guns or sec status. No one. You tank it, or you bring logi, or both.

It's high sec carebears who cry about war decs. High sec structures can be targeted. And carebears who forget their renter corp/nullsec alliance is under war dec and get popped on the way to or from Jita because they're too dumb or forgot to use a neutral hauling alt.

Seriously, this affects so few people it's laughable. And to those few who complain about it - what, you think "high sec" means absolutely risk and consequence free? No, your stuff can be popped in high sec too. At least you get 24 hours' notice. Don't like it, take everything out of your POS/Citadel and put it in someone else's or an NPC station. Too lazy to do that? THEN YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

Or you could always, I dunno - defend your stuff.


Briliant analysis, you just discovered, without assistance, that the reason of wardec is to circunvent CONCORD in highsec, thus they are a highsec mechanic. Shocked

Now ask yourself, why the ability to destroy player assets without the aggressor being destroyed by CONCORD is so important that CCP devoted time and effort to create wardecs as an exception to the already existing -and quite complex- crimewatch mechanic? And who is favored by this wardec mechanic? Carebears? PvPrs? Who's being pampered by CCP...?
#32 - 2017-02-26 23:37:22 UTC
Wardecs allow bigger groups to prey on smaller groups.

This encourages smaller groups to disband, and their members to join bigger groups.

Ultimately the design of wardecs is to encourage forced group play in huge groups.

At its core, CCP wants everyone to be zerglings.

I don't want to be part of a zombie horde, I get enough of that mindless life on this planet.

But I can see why CCP wants everyone to be a space zombie; zombie movies are very popular.

We could make a HBO series!

"The Flying Dead"

~ ~~ Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox. ~~ ~

#33 - 2017-02-27 00:29:23 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Briliant analysis, you just discovered, without assistance, that the reason of wardec is to circunvent CONCORD in highsec, thus they are a highsec mechanic. Shocked

Now ask yourself, why the ability to destroy player assets without the aggressor being destroyed by CONCORD is so important that CCP devoted time and effort to create wardecs as an exception to the already existing -and quite complex- crimewatch mechanic? And who is favored by this wardec mechanic? Carebears? PvPrs? Who's being pampered by CCP...?


You have a 24 hour notice. Why do you think you're so special that your assets must last absolutely forever with no risk in this game? If you're not prepared to defend your assets, take them down. You can take a POS down in a few hours. A citadel is a little more complicated but hey, if you're in a position to afford a citadel then you're good enough and popular enough to defend it, right? RIGHT?

Wait, does this come back to "don't fly what you can't afford to lose?" Boohoo I bought a citadel with PLEX and now I can't afford/don't know how to/don't have friends to defend it.... well whose fault is that? Maybe you shouldn't have plonked cash on a citadel thinking you can "pay to win".

As to "the ability to destroy player assets without the aggressor being destroyed by CONCORD", you realize that you can do it to them too, right? This is not a one-sided situation. Unless you absolutely cannot fight, in which case maybe you have misunderstood the nature of the EVE universe.
#34 - 2017-02-27 00:59:14 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Briliant analysis, you just discovered, without assistance, that the reason of wardec is to circunvent CONCORD in highsec, thus they are a highsec mechanic. Shocked

Now ask yourself, why the ability to destroy player assets without the aggressor being destroyed by CONCORD is so important that CCP devoted time and effort to create wardecs as an exception to the already existing -and quite complex- crimewatch mechanic? And who is favored by this wardec mechanic? Carebears? PvPrs? Who's being pampered by CCP...?


You have a 24 hour notice. Why do you think you're so special that your assets must last absolutely forever with no risk in this game? If you're not prepared to defend your assets, take them down. You can take a POS down in a few hours. A citadel is a little more complicated but hey, if you're in a position to afford a citadel then you're good enough and popular enough to defend it, right? RIGHT?

Wait, does this come back to "don't fly what you can't afford to lose?" Boohoo I bought a citadel with PLEX and now I can't afford/don't know how to/don't have friends to defend it.... well whose fault is that? Maybe you shouldn't have plonked cash on a citadel thinking you can "pay to win".

As to "the ability to destroy player assets without the aggressor being destroyed by CONCORD", you realize that you can do it to them too, right? This is not a one-sided situation. Unless you absolutely cannot fight, in which case maybe you have misunderstood the nature of the EVE universe.

I think you may be missing the point of his post, I am not sure whether he is anti-PvP in hisec or just anti-pointless wardeccs where the defenders only victory conditions are to not fight (which btw is laughably easy) but to me it looks like he means that wardecs are a mechanic designed to get people out of hisec and they fail miserably at it in their current form. People in hisec are most likely either.
1) smart enough to avoid wardeccers.
2) unwilling to bother living in an area with less security or just afraid of low/null sec after reading articles about it. (Eg. afraid they will have super carriers dropped on their venture 2 jumps into lowsec)
3) station traders who don't care about wardecs anyways.
4) people who are very new or very stupid who fly into trade hubs/uedama in slow aligning ships while wardecced.
5) people who make isk killing the people in category 4.
Also, I have not checked but how many wardec corps actually have structures in space?
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2017-02-27 01:05:59 UTC
CCP "needs" destruction in the game to make a profit. It also makes the game more interesting to many players.

The problem is new players and beginner corporations have no chance against established players & corps that have knowledge, experience & SP on their side. Thus leading to a failed NPE that causes players to quit.

So the challenge is how to allow destruction while not losing new players.

What if defending corps were allowed to hire NPC assistance during the war. Use the new NPC mining fleet AI to provide backup that shows the new corps how an organized group of ships - tackle, DPS, logistics - fights. This gives them a chance to experience the thrill of combat and forces the attacking corp to risk some destruction as well.



#36 - 2017-02-27 01:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Bertok Francis wrote:

I think you may be missing the point of his post, I am not sure whether he is anti-PvP in hisec or just anti-pointless wardeccs where the defenders only victory conditions are to not fight (which btw is laughably easy) but to me it looks like he means that wardecs are a mechanic designed to get people out of hisec and they fail miserably at it in their current form. People in hisec are most likely either.


War decs were never meant to "get people out of hi sec". They were meant to prevent people from being untouchable in high sec.

Being war decced is an opportunity. Sure, they can kill you. But you can kill them too. If they outnumber you, well perhaps THAT is your problem. EVE is a multiplayer game. Don't expect to be able to play solo 100% of the time.
Caldari State
#37 - 2017-02-27 01:34:57 UTC
wardecs fail because people can just drop from a corp with no consequence


they'd be less broken if dropping from corp made no difference
#38 - 2017-02-27 01:41:47 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Bertok Francis wrote:

I think you may be missing the point of his post, I am not sure whether he is anti-PvP in hisec or just anti-pointless wardeccs where the defenders only victory conditions are to not fight (which btw is laughably easy) but to me it looks like he means that wardecs are a mechanic designed to get people out of hisec and they fail miserably at it in their current form. People in hisec are most likely either.


War decs were never meant to "get people out of hi sec". They were meant to prevent people from being untouchable in high sec.

Being war decced is an opportunity. Sure, they can kill you. But you can kill them too. If they outnumber you, well perhaps THAT is your problem. EVE is a multiplayer game. Don't expect to be able to play solo 100% of the time.

Yes, you can kill them (or not if they have 8 out of corp basilisks covering them) but that is the worst way to get them to go away. Unless they are in it for the isk only (unlikely) fighting battles are the best way to make it so you have to live with the annoyance of a war for another week. Atm the best way to deal with a wardec is to just not go to a trade hub with a wardecced character. An alpha clone can be a neutral hauler alt with almost no training and even better can create a 1 man corp for low tax. Yes that account can be wardecced but corp management is a cheap skillbook. If there was an actual point in fighting I would but there simply is not.
#39 - 2017-02-27 02:13:58 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
wardecs fail because people can just drop from a corp with no consequence
they'd be less broken if dropping from corp made no difference

Do you really want players logging off for weeks at a time? I'm not sure how this improves EVE.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2017-02-27 02:18:04 UTC
As much as I don't want to, I have to agree. Forcing players to take part in a war is not a good idea, and not even possible. If they can't avoid the war while playing, they will just avoid playing instead.
20 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump