Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
3 Pages123Next page
 

ideas to improve the war system to make it more fun and better

Author
The Gurlstas Associates
#1 - 2017-01-05 14:46:31 UTC
Lets face it the war system is broken , exploited and one sided , it only seems to be used by Trade Hub Huggers , High Sec Gate Huggers or POCO bashers , if there were real reasons for wars cause and effect consequences , measurable goals and more added to the system it would be a fun thing

the general cost of a war is nothing 50mill plus ( depending on the size of the group you dec ) because of this anyone with a wallet , a high dps ship and bordom sits on a trade hub and war dec's every hauler , miner and indy player they see , there are no real gameplay goals here than tear collecting and making high sec a sucky place to live for those that want to live there

My idea wont suit everyone , i expect to be trolled and flamed however its a real problem that needs to be balanced as right now larger groups are taking advantage of the system to make the game far less enjoyable for the smaller ones

First part of the Idea - Raise the Cost of High Sec Wars ( there are a few ways that this could be done )
- Option 1 - simply increase the cost for a war to an amount that makes it only practical to run one or two wars at a time like 500mill - 1bill per war
- Option 2 - Keep the cost for a war the same but add an escrow amount of 500mill if you don't kill or loose to a war target in the week the escrow gets paid to the war decked corp as a prize and you also dont get to continue the war ( this will force war deckers to plan their war , hunt targets , and not just dec for the chance of a trade hub undock kill )
- Option 3 - Battleground Registration - as well as the war fee you have to choose your high sec systems to fight in that are registered with concorde , each system has a cost added to the war bill eg 10mill per system , each constellation 200mill , each region 1bll (random figures ) this means that when you dec the target you will have first chosen from your intell their systems they operate etc also leaving them or their members and your members as well areas that no engagement can occure ie trade hub corp war decks a freighter corp as an example they choose Jita but forget to add perimiter , perimiter becomes a safe system with concorde response still in effect

any of these options or parts of all 3 could be used to improve the system and make wars have real meaning as well as work involved to make war , not just gate hug or station hug waiting for a target to fly past your guns

the 2nd part of the idea - war cool down periods
option 1 - if you are the the victim and the war is not extended they cant dec you for a month and other corps cant dec you for a week ( give them time to recover so they have stuff to kill again next time )

option 2 - a maximum number of wars per corp / alliance equal to 1 war per 20 players per week / month ( random figure )

the 3rd part of the idea

specify real targets for a war , eg you wat to kill a POCO you have to tell concord the target ( your target doesnt get told this )
if you kill the target the war ends early if you dont kill the target you cant re-dec for a month

- if a player is the target you have to specify an isk value of ships your going to kill against that player / corp / alliance - reach that value your war ends dont reach it you cant re-dec for a month

if you fail you pay an amount to the corp you decked ( see escrow idea above )

all the target knows is your at war

however you have to also place an isk value for surrender of your target that cant be more than 20%(example) of your target destruction kill mail value if they pay the war ends and they get time off from you


im sure there are many ways to improve the war system to make it fun , rewarding and add more of a real war feel to it these are just some ideas and i encourage others to post there ideas to improve the war part of the game first and formost however there should be a method to state a reason for the war , the war objective in a measurable way , penalties for not reaching those objectives , and reaching the objective is the reward while making is so that making a war is not something you can do on a whim





CODE.
#2 - 2017-01-05 16:37:46 UTC
So you want to make it 10x more expensive and limit to a few systems so it is even easier to avoid and if they manage to avoid it for a week they get 500mil ISK. Is that right?

I completely miss the added fun part you advertise.
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#3 - 2017-01-05 17:09:52 UTC
if you want to seriously help balance the mechanic ill happily engage in the conversation.
ive been having this particular discussion for longer than you have been playing.
However if all you want to do is cripple aggressors the you will get copy-paste-annihilate responses like this one



Issue : mechanical restrictions encourage conglomeration of PvP oriented players into large scale , unassailable professional millitary entities. Mechanics limit said entities ability to direct wars and thus encourage massing in and around tradehubs and choke points. Further conglomeration follows to facilitate ease of operations and to absorb costs.

Add more restrictive mechanics, see what happens.

As of now a small gang PvP Merc corp has to be able stand pressure from a targeted war from someone like us or a blanket Barr from the hub's from someone like vendetta or pirat, if they don't they then get ground into the mud.

We need an environment where by those small gang groups can operate and grow because those are the lads you can beat.
Those are the lads you can slap about without incurring the wrath of a group whom you have no hope.

No one rules forever, the large groups will break up with time but if the parts that fall off can't operate autonomously they will just form a new big group.
We've seen this time an again year after year.

Another thing you have to take into account is the inverse of the malikanis law, any and all restrictions you place on larger groups, effect the smaller ones.

If you're looking to restrict us, you do so to your own ability to wage war upon us,
whom would you suppose can leverage experience ,
internal structure,
motivations and determination to addapt and optimise ?

We do so currently, and there is a big gulf between dedicated Merc community and the average corp as it stands,
take care not to widen it further.
#4 - 2017-01-05 17:52:40 UTC
This was a bad idea the first 5,268 times it was posted.

Nothing has changed.
Caldari State
#5 - 2017-01-05 18:08:30 UTC
Volnax wrote:
First part of the Idea - Raise the Cost of High Sec Wars ( there are a few ways that this could be done )
- Option 1 - simply increase the cost for a war to an amount that makes it only practical to run one or two wars at a time like 500mill - 1bill per war
- Option 2 - Keep the cost for a war the same but add an escrow amount of 500mill if you don't kill or loose to a war target in the week the escrow gets paid to the war decked corp as a prize and you also dont get to continue the war ( this will force war deckers to plan their war , hunt targets , and not just dec for the chance of a trade hub undock kill )
- Option 3 - Battleground Registration - as well as the war fee you have to choose your high sec systems to fight in that are registered with concorde , each system has a cost added to the war bill eg 10mill per system , each constellation 200mill , each region 1bll (random figures ) this means that when you dec the target you will have first chosen from your intell their systems they operate etc also leaving them or their members and your members as well areas that no engagement can occure ie trade hub corp war decks a freighter corp as an example they choose Jita but forget to add perimiter , perimiter becomes a safe system with concorde response still in effect


I have no opinion on the overall subject of your OP, but what you are looking for here is relative values not absolute values. So...

-Zeroth Option - make the wardec fee directly proportional to the size of the attacking Corp(Alliance) and inversely proportional to the size of the defending Corp(Alliance) and varied by some constant (the base value).

mathematically it would look like this: WDF = Attack/Defend x base value.

It needn't be a strictly simple proportionality either. You could use the square roots of the corp sizes. You could use some logarithmic relation. The exact proportionality isn't necessarily the important thing here and if there is one thing EvE devs and their players are good at, it is finding an appropriate mathematical construct for the purpose.

HTH
End of Life
#6 - 2017-01-05 18:27:46 UTC
Roll
#7 - 2017-01-05 23:57:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Volnax wrote:
Lets face it the war system is broken , exploited and one sided , it only seems to be used by Trade Hub Huggers , High Sec Gate Huggers or POCO bashers , if there were real reasons for wars cause and effect consequences , measurable goals and more added to the system it would be a fun thing.
There's a reason that most mercs have become "hub humping degenerates"; thanks to a never ending barrage of nerfs asked for by people like you, and the fallout from the watch list changes, it's pretty much the only option left available to them.

Quote:
the general cost of a war is nothing 50mill plus ( depending on the size of the group you dec ) because of this anyone with a wallet , a high dps ship and bordom sits on a trade hub and war dec's every hauler , miner and indy player they see , there are no real gameplay goals here than tear collecting and making high sec a sucky place to live for those that want to live there.
It used to cost 2M to wardec someone, now it's a base cost of 50M; that's a minimum of a 2400% increase, is that not enough for you?

I haul to hubs, I mine and I produce stuff, and have never been wardecced because of it. Why? Because I'm not in the habit of making myself a victim or an easy mark, and use the game mechanics to my advantage; just as wardec corps do.

Quote:
I'm sure there are many ways to improve the war system to make it fun , rewarding and add more of a real war feel to it these are just some ideas and i encourage others to post there ideas to improve the war part of the game first and formost however there should be a method to state a reason for the war , the war objective in a measurable way , penalties for not reaching those objectives , and reaching the objective is the reward while making is so that making a war is not something you can do on a whim
I have no doubt that there are ways to improve the wardec system, yours isn't one of them.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

#8 - 2017-01-06 00:11:57 UTC
Just another carebear...

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"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2017-01-06 00:40:23 UTC
Volnax wrote:
Lets face it the war system is broken , exploited and one sided , it only seems to be used by Trade Hub Huggers , High Sec Gate Huggers or POCO bashers , if there were real reasons for wars cause and effect consequences , measurable goals and more added to the system it would be a fun thing


Ahhh, yes the good ol' days. I remember them before CCP messed them up.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2017-01-06 00:50:18 UTC
Volnax wrote:

First part of the Idea - Raise the Cost of High Sec Wars ( there are a few ways that this could be done )
- Option 1 - simply increase the cost for a war to an amount that makes it only practical to run one or two wars at a time like 500mill - 1bill per war
- Option 2 - Keep the cost for a war the same but add an escrow amount of 500mill if you don't kill or loose to a war target in the week the escrow gets paid to the war decked corp as a prize and you also dont get to continue the war ( this will force war deckers to plan their war , hunt targets , and not just dec for the chance of a trade hub undock kill )
- Option 3 - Battleground Registration - as well as the war fee you have to choose your high sec systems to fight in that are registered with concorde , each system has a cost added to the war bill eg 10mill per system , each constellation 200mill , each region 1bll (random figures ) this means that when you dec the target you will have first chosen from your intell their systems they operate etc also leaving them or their members and your members as well areas that no engagement can occure ie trade hub corp war decks a freighter corp as an example they choose Jita but forget to add perimiter , perimiter becomes a safe system with concorde response still in effect

any of these options or parts of all 3 could be used to improve the system and make wars have real meaning as well as work involved to make war , not just gate hug or station hug waiting for a target to fly past your guns

the 2nd part of the idea - war cool down periods
option 1 - if you are the the victim and the war is not extended they cant dec you for a month and other corps cant dec you for a week ( give them time to recover so they have stuff to kill again next time )

option 2 - a maximum number of wars per corp / alliance equal to 1 war per 20 players per week / month ( random figure )

the 3rd part of the idea

specify real targets for a war , eg you wat to kill a POCO you have to tell concord the target ( your target doesnt get told this )
if you kill the target the war ends early if you dont kill the target you cant re-dec for a month

- if a player is the target you have to specify an isk value of ships your going to kill against that player / corp / alliance - reach that value your war ends dont reach it you cant re-dec for a month

if you fail you pay an amount to the corp you decked ( see escrow idea above )

all the target knows is your at war

however you have to also place an isk value for surrender of your target that cant be more than 20%(example) of your target destruction kill mail value if they pay the war ends and they get time off from you


The thrust of your "suggestions" (I'd call them a load of nonsense) is quite clear. You want to simply nerf HS PvP. This is bad, as HS PvP has been nerfed over the years players logged in has been declining. We need to go in exactly the opposite direction IMO. More HS PvP. Make is possible for targeted war decs to become viable again would be a good first start.

All of your suggestions are designed at limiting war decs and the ability of those using the war dec mechanic to engage other players. I see that there is nothing on the other side, forcing/promoting those who have been decced to get out there and fight.

If you don't like the open ended nature of Eve perhaps it is time for you to go find another game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2017-01-06 00:56:00 UTC
Volnax wrote:


im sure there are many ways to improve the war system to make it fun , rewarding and add more of a real war feel to it these are just some ideas and i encourage others to post there ideas to improve the war part of the game first and formost however there should be a method to state a reason for the war , the war objective in a measurable way , penalties for not reaching those objectives , and reaching the objective is the reward while making is so that making a war is not something you can do on a whim


Actually no. There are very few ways. The problem is some players want to engage in direct ship-to-ship PvP at all. And there are players who do. And neither side will likely agree on any change that will "improve" the war dec system. Almost all changes are despised by one side.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

#12 - 2017-01-06 00:58:56 UTC
So to not be entirely negative, the most viable suggestion of this whole lot is to put war dec fees (some or all of them) into a pool. If the dec corp fails to get kills, or loses more ships than it kills, then the targeted corp gets paid out of the pool.

If you want to play around with that concept, go for it. Everything else is, for various reasons, not going to work. Even this one is pushing it, but I definitely see it as the most workable suggestion.
#13 - 2017-01-06 01:23:17 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
So to not be entirely negative, the most viable suggestion of this whole lot is to put war dec fees (some or all of them) into a pool. If the dec corp fails to get kills, or loses more ships than it kills, then the targeted corp gets paid out of the pool.

If you want to play around with that concept, go for it. Everything else is, for various reasons, not going to work. Even this one is pushing it, but I definitely see it as the most workable suggestion.


Get decced.
Everyone but an alt drops corp.
Start new corp for a measly 1mil.
Everyone joins new corp.
Dec against first corp ends with no kills.
Profit.


Defenders shouldn't get paid unless the attackers agree as some form of treaty.

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"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#14 - 2017-01-06 02:27:44 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
So to not be entirely negative, the most viable suggestion of this whole lot is to put war dec fees (some or all of them) into a pool. If the dec corp fails to get kills, or loses more ships than it kills, then the targeted corp gets paid out of the pool.

If you want to play around with that concept, go for it. Everything else is, for various reasons, not going to work. Even this one is pushing it, but I definitely see it as the most workable suggestion.


Get decced.
Everyone but an alt drops corp.
Start new corp for a measly 1mil.
Everyone joins new corp.
Dec against first corp ends with no kills.
Profit.


Defenders shouldn't get paid unless the attackers agree as some form of treaty.


Yeah, that's the major flaw. And the way around it, preventing people from dropping corp while dec'd, is a rather major change as well.

Shrug. System is fine as far as I'm concerned.
#15 - 2017-01-06 02:35:27 UTC
I'm all for giving defenders a way to 'win' but am convinced the objective shouldn't be about ships destroyed nor the reward be materialistic.

Corp starter fees are obviously out of whack when compared to dec fees and corp hopping is an issue.

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"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#16 - 2017-01-06 02:52:12 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
So you want to make it 10x more expensive and limit to a few systems so it is even easier to avoid and if they manage to avoid it for a week they get 500mil ISK. Is that right?

I completely miss the added fun part you advertise.
Indeed. These ideas would seem to make wars decidedly less fun and definitely not better. In fact, they would make them unusable for almost everyone.

That would not be a better war system for anyone except if your goal is to eliminate wars entirely. If you want that OP, why not just propose removing wars? It would be a cleaner and more honest solution to just ask CCP to remove your risk to non-consensual attack by deleting wars entirely than to try to nerf a mechanic into irrelevance.

-1
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2017-01-06 03:35:17 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
So to not be entirely negative, the most viable suggestion of this whole lot is to put war dec fees (some or all of them) into a pool. If the dec corp fails to get kills, or loses more ships than it kills, then the targeted corp gets paid out of the pool.

If you want to play around with that concept, go for it. Everything else is, for various reasons, not going to work. Even this one is pushing it, but I definitely see it as the most workable suggestion.


Oh gee yeah, lets do that. Hey everyone dock up and log off for a week and we get some ISK.

Yep, not open to abuse at all. Roll

Sheesh.

Next ****** idea?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2017-01-06 03:37:26 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
So to not be entirely negative, the most viable suggestion of this whole lot is to put war dec fees (some or all of them) into a pool. If the dec corp fails to get kills, or loses more ships than it kills, then the targeted corp gets paid out of the pool.

If you want to play around with that concept, go for it. Everything else is, for various reasons, not going to work. Even this one is pushing it, but I definitely see it as the most workable suggestion.


Get decced.
Everyone but an alt drops corp.
Start new corp for a measly 1mil.
Everyone joins new corp.
Dec against first corp ends with no kills.
Profit.


Defenders shouldn't get paid unless the attackers agree as some form of treaty.


Yeah, that's the major flaw. And the way around it, preventing people from dropping corp while dec'd, is a rather major change as well.

Shrug. System is fine as far as I'm concerned.


Shall we prevent them from docking up and logging off too?

No, it is a complete **** idea.

Maybe if you made it apply to both sides it would not be so bad. That is if neither side gets any kills, then the war dec fees are returned in equal amounts. If one side gets the most kills it gets the pot.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2017-01-06 03:39:03 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
So you want to make it 10x more expensive and limit to a few systems so it is even easier to avoid and if they manage to avoid it for a week they get 500mil ISK. Is that right?

I completely miss the added fun part you advertise.
Indeed. These ideas would seem to make wars decidedly less fun and definitely not better. In fact, they would make them unusable for almost everyone.

That would not be a better war system for anyone except if your goal is to eliminate wars entirely. If you want that OP, why not just propose removing wars? It would be a cleaner and more honest solution to just ask CCP to remove your risk to non-consensual attack by deleting wars entirely than to try to nerf a mechanic into irrelevance.

-1


Because he is an intellectually dishonest POS.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

#20 - 2017-01-10 07:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Pleasure Hub Node-514
Quote:
- Option 2 - Keep the cost for a war the same but add an escrow amount of 500mill if you don't kill or loose to a war target in the week the escrow gets paid to the war decked corp as a prize and you also dont get to continue the war ( this will force war deckers to plan their war , hunt targets , and not just dec for the chance of a trade hub undock kill )

I would only pay out escrow to the defenders if the defenders destroyed more than attackers in the war dec period.

I'd also say attackers should have to meet a threshold of ISK destroyed in war to get their escrow deposit back. Maybe this threshold can be decreased if attacking group puts more into escrow. Attackers risk more in ISK loss if defender turtles up and denies fights.

'One night hauler' The tell all story of a pleasure bot in Jita 4-4

3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump