Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
3 Pages123Next page
 

Upgrade wardecs with deployables, to create actual wars

Author
Caldari State
#1 - 2017-03-25 21:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
Have CONCORD sell a few deployables, of various levels of ISK investment and toughness. The base model would be 50m, probably, with the rest of the ISK cost coming from the actual activation.

Then, they are anchored somewhere (nothing special, 5m or 1m or whatever). Once anchored, they can be used to start a war (24h timer, obviously) or end it. Similar total costs as current system, except players should probably be able to pay even more for tougher deployables. ISK cost to run instead of fuel, since as far as ingame lore, you're just interfacing with CONCORD systems to flag ship-vs-ship engagements as not to be responded to.


  • The defending corp/alliance is not notified of the deployable location, but it is visible when entering a system.

  • The structure must be located in empire space.

  • If the defending corp/alliance or friends find and destroy the deployable, the war ends.

  • If the deployable is un-anchored, the war ends.

  • If the ISK runs out, the war ends, and the deployable can re re-used, but deccing again or deccing another will of course cost more ISK.


Details: Vulnerability timers? Weapons on the deployable? Reinforcement timers? Deployed near (but not on top of) player structures? Where can the structures be located? Should it have to be located in hisec to carry the war into losec and hisec? Losec anchoring for losec only? Any point in requiring the wardeccing person to actually be at the deployable? Probably not.


My thought is this: Wars are frequently not really very war-like. Lots of people use it just to get free targets, without any real risk, and then they just camp trade hubs. The attackers get to choose pretty much everything, target, timing, whether to engage or not.

This system would create a defense point for the attackers, and they would need to protect it during vulnerable times, and/or respond to the structure going into reinforced. A defender would then have a CHANCE of responding to a war in a proactive manner, or hiring mercenaries to track down, join defenders, and destroy the deployable.

It would help create fights.

Bonus: if you successfully un-anchor and scoop, you get the deployable back.

Bonus: people can have fun hunting around for these, and selling the locations.


EDIT> Also, have a period after each destroyed structure, where the destroying corp cannot be decced by the attacking corp for a period of time. 1 week per attempt, starting at 1 week. So 1 week, then 2 weeks, then 3, then caps at a month. So if someone is REALLY persistent, you only have to kill their deployable every month.

For each month of war-free behavior, the penalty drops by a week. Or something. Those numbers are just ballpark.

And because people would game this by using alliances, if they join an alliance, the alliance inherits any war-declare-delay penalties.
#2 - 2017-03-26 05:35:48 UTC
This is a bad idea because it replaces relevant strategic objectives (economic disruption, etc) with arena-style PvP where you fight over some arbitrary point in space that has nothing to do with any of the organizations involved.
#3 - 2017-03-26 06:06:39 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
This is a bad idea because it replaces relevant strategic objectives (economic disruption, etc) with arena-style PvP where you fight over some arbitrary point in space that has nothing to do with any of the organizations involved.

Except strategic objectives essentially don't exist in declared wars right now. Right now the arbitrary point people fight over is "wherever we happen to randomly bump into each other." So... what aspect of wardecs are you defending exactly?

What I like about this idea is that it gives the defenders incentive to fight, and a way to forcibly end an unwanted wardec. Whereas right now the incentive for the defenders is to log off and trade in their EVE subs for a netflix sub.

I'm feeling like something's missing with the idea though. Maybe it can help to facilitate asymmetrical warfare. Maybe something along the lines of making it raidable for intel (like maybe hack it to get a full member list of the aggressors.) Something to give the defenders not just incentive to bash a structure, but even more, to hunt down the aggressors.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

#4 - 2017-03-26 06:15:52 UTC
mkint wrote:
Except strategic objectives essentially don't exist in declared wars right now.


No. What you mean is that strategic objectives don't exist as a game mechanic. Strategic objectives are defined by the players involved. I decide what my objectives are in declaring the war, and at what point I will allow the war to end and move on to something else. Maybe that's a certain value in ships killed, maybe it's the target corp disbanding, maybe it's simply a certain period of time to shut down their PvE. The proposed system replaces these player-defined objectives with arena-style PvP where everyone shows up at the designated time and fights over an arbitrary point in space.

Quote:
Whereas right now the incentive for the defenders is to log off and trade in their EVE subs for a netflix sub.


No, that's the incentive for bad players. Good players, the kind that deserve to exist in EVE, have much better counters: hiring mercenaries, moving to lowsec/0.0 where the war is irrelevant, etc. New mechanics should not coddle the bad players and let them escape the consequences of being bad.
#5 - 2017-03-26 07:07:10 UTC
mkint wrote:
What I like about this idea is that it gives the defenders incentive to fight, and a way to forcibly end an unwanted wardec. Whereas right now the incentive for the defenders is to log off and trade in their EVE subs for a netflix sub.

While I am all for working towards creating organic objectives to fight over, this bad idea is contrived and forced and will do nothing but give the largest groups in the game more safety (they can opt-out of wars by forming and blobbing the structure) and the power to dictate how smaller groups use the war mechanic. The game mechanics should not give you complete safety, even as a reward for fighting. You should always be at risk to retaliation and harassment by smaller entities, and you shouldn't be able to defend your structures by just turning off the ability of your opponents to shoot it.

That said, I would be for a structure wardeccers want to use (or even have to use) so there is someway for the defender to try to force a fight and/or inflict damage on the aggressor. Ideally they would want to use it,and I would even accept if it was mandatory if it had only a modest cost and the ability to wage war itself wasn't tied to it. Earning complete safety, even by fighting, is anathema to the core idea of the game and is honestly a non-starter. CCP is not going to give PL invulnerable structures because they are big enough to end any war and prevent other groups from even trying to shoot their structures in highsec.

I hope CCP can get there with the Observatory Array which would have intel tools wardeccers would want to use. But really, keeping your stuff should be all the incentive you need to defend yourself in a PvP game. If you don't want to defend a player corp, then don't join a player corp. CCP has thoughtfully provided multiple wardec-immune NPC corps for you to use.

Bribing players with safety to participate in wars is completely counter-productive for a vibrant, conflict-filled PvP sandbox game. It isn't going to happen.
#6 - 2017-03-26 07:43:27 UTC
How do you expect some 10 man corp, living in, for example, Pator, to find such structure in highsec bubble of aridia? Or solitude... they build the structure and instantly pod/clonejump out of that sector and the Patorians will never find that thing.

NONONONONONO TO CAPS IN HIGHSEC NO

Brave Collective
#7 - 2017-03-26 09:38:20 UTC
mkint wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
This is a bad idea because it replaces relevant strategic objectives (economic disruption, etc) with arena-style PvP where you fight over some arbitrary point in space that has nothing to do with any of the organizations involved.

Except strategic objectives essentially don't exist in declared wars right now. Right now the arbitrary point people fight over is "wherever we happen to randomly bump into each other." So... what aspect of wardecs are you defending exactly?

What I like about this idea is that it gives the defenders incentive to fight, and a way to forcibly end an unwanted wardec.

The strategic objective is:
Whatever the declaring party decides is relevant.

This proposal exchanges that economic warfare with capture-the-flag.
This proposal exchanges player driven objectives for a rigidly structured mini-game.
This proposal is contrary to EvE's open-ended nature.

The part of wardecs that I am defending is the attacker's right to decide what the objective is and how to go about achieving it.
#8 - 2017-03-26 13:07:51 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
mkint wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
This is a bad idea because it replaces relevant strategic objectives (economic disruption, etc) with arena-style PvP where you fight over some arbitrary point in space that has nothing to do with any of the organizations involved.

Except strategic objectives essentially don't exist in declared wars right now. Right now the arbitrary point people fight over is "wherever we happen to randomly bump into each other." So... what aspect of wardecs are you defending exactly?

What I like about this idea is that it gives the defenders incentive to fight, and a way to forcibly end an unwanted wardec.

The strategic objective is:
Whatever the declaring party decides is relevant.

This proposal exchanges that economic warfare with capture-the-flag.
This proposal exchanges player driven objectives for a rigidly structured mini-game.
This proposal is contrary to EvE's open-ended nature.

The part of wardecs that I am defending is the attacker's right to decide what the objective is and how to go about achieving it.

And what about the defender's right to have ANY objective? The attackers would STILL declare war for whatever goals they've decided for themselves. This proposal has nothing to do with the attackers or what they do.

This proposal has some merit because it gives the defender something worthwhile to do. The attacker has the opportunity to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat, and while denying their targets the same. Wardecs are inherently in favor of the aggressor. Adding game mechanics to give the defenders tools to, you know, defend, can only be a good thing.

People respond to incentives, and right now the best decision a defender can make is to not play EVE. That's a life-threatening problem for EVE, and needs to be fixed. This idea is as good as any other and better than most for facilitating that.

The idea does not threaten the sandbox any more than any other structure in the game. That argument is ridiculous.

The only argument that has merit here is about asymmetrical warfare... even though this would give opportunities for a weaker defender to even out the playing field, it's ridiculously OP when the defender is significantly stronger. If there were some way to balance that out, we might have something plausible here.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2017-03-26 13:14:22 UTC
What, exactly, is stopping the defender from taking the time to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat?
#10 - 2017-03-26 13:27:34 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
What, exactly, is stopping the defender from taking the time to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat?

A) because most of them are rookies and don't know any better.

and B) because they aren't the ones declaring war, they don't even know who their future targets are going to be.

Maybe you've been an NPC in someone else's mega-alliance for too long, but have you really never experienced the imbalance in the wardec system? A corp that couldn't even fill up a squad in fleet can completely decimate a corp that couldn't fit in a wing, and that seems to be the primary use of the system. EVE shouldn't be easy. Not for the defenders, but also not for the attackers.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

#11 - 2017-03-26 14:20:06 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
This proposal exchanges that economic warfare with capture-the-flag.
This proposal exchanges player driven objectives for a rigidly structured mini-game.
This proposal is contrary to EvE's open-ended nature.

The part of wardecs that I am defending is the attacker's right to decide what the objective is and how to go about achieving it.

Not a real fan of the OP idea either but I do want to comment on this.
Stop already with this big lie about how war decs are about restricting industrial and economic activities because it is simply not true. Yes you will catch and destroy stuff that belongs to some of your targets because they are lazy and do not want to bother but you will NEVER be able to affect even in the slightest a well set up and well run high sec indy corp. I know I have a character in one for the last 5 years and we have been under nearly constant war decs and those war dec players have never destroyed anything but a few lazy, stupid people that are no longer in the corp. With alt characters, alt corps, NPC corps, hauling services like red / black frog, POS / Citadel owned by alt corps but funded by the main, you can bury your activities so deeply that you are immune to war decs and there is no way for the war dec players to ever sort out what you are actually doing and who you are doing it with. In fact we have lost 100 times more stuff to gankers than we have to war decs.
#12 - 2017-03-26 16:13:32 UTC
mkint wrote:
And what about the defender's right to have ANY objective?


Your objective is to make the war stop*. Whether that's through killing enough of the enemy that they end the war to stop their losses, or by evading combat successfully enough that they get bored and move on is up to you. But this is far more interesting than winning some arena PvP battle over an arbitrary point in space.

*Unless of course your objective is to continue the war because you're better than the idiots who attacked you.

Quote:
The attacker has the opportunity to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat, and while denying their targets the same.


The defender can do all of these things. Sure, they can't gather intel until the war begins, but they can certainly set the same backups that the attacker can. And once the war begins they can gather intel too. The problem is not that these options are not available, it's that many people suck at EVE and are unwilling to invest the effort required.

Quote:
People respond to incentives, and right now the best decision a defender can make is to not play EVE.


Only if you suck at EVE. There are plenty of much better decisions you can make if you don't suck.
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2017-03-26 16:44:17 UTC
mkint wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
What, exactly, is stopping the defender from taking the time to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat?

A) because most of them are rookies and don't know any better.

and B) because they aren't the ones declaring war, they don't even know who their future targets are going to be.

Maybe you've been an NPC in someone else's mega-alliance for too long, but have you really never experienced the imbalance in the wardec system? A corp that couldn't even fill up a squad in fleet can completely decimate a corp that couldn't fit in a wing, and that seems to be the primary use of the system. EVE shouldn't be easy. Not for the defenders, but also not for the attackers.


So...rather than learning the game, scouting out where the big wardec groups live and operate, figuring out some tactics, maybe even going on the test server and getting some practice in, you expect your small group of rookies who don't know how to play the game to fly to a highsec pocket in solitude or aridia and bash a structure belonging to an experienced and generally pretty well resourced pvp group who in no way are going to ever even consider using a couple of alts to ruin your clueless newbies day?

I'm pretty sure the simple answer here is 'git gud'. If you're losing when outnumbering the other guy five to one, the problem is not the system.
#14 - 2017-03-26 17:15:50 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


Quote:
People respond to incentives, and right now the best decision a defender can make is to not play EVE.


Only if you suck at EVE. There are plenty of much better decisions you can make if you don't suck.


The incentive is to do what's fun. If netflix, or some other game is going to be more fun than EVE, then that's what people are going to do. And if that's what they are doing, then both wardecs and CCP are failing.

Personally, I've always had moments with lots of fun in wars, defending against mediocre aggressors. But regardless of how much fun I sometimes had with it, most days the only reason I even bothered logging in was out of a sense of obligation to my corp, not because I actually wanted to. I don't know if my experiences were typical, but I suspect most wars are even less fun for most people.

I don't know if the OP is the right answer to the things that are wrong with wardecs. It's probably not. But despite the flaws with the idea, it's still one of the better ideas I've seen presented for it, and better than most of the ideas CCP actually implemented for it.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

#15 - 2017-03-26 23:46:14 UTC
mkint wrote:
The incentive is to do what's fun. If netflix, or some other game is going to be more fun than EVE, then that's what people are going to do. And if that's what they are doing, then both wardecs and CCP are failing.


This is only a problem if you suck at EVE. The people who are logging off for the duration of a war are the "level my Raven" types who quit at the first sign of adversity. EVE doesn't need them, and shouldn't pander to their lack of ability to defend themselves.
#16 - 2017-03-27 00:06:19 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
mkint wrote:
The incentive is to do what's fun. If netflix, or some other game is going to be more fun than EVE, then that's what people are going to do. And if that's what they are doing, then both wardecs and CCP are failing.


This is only a problem if you suck at EVE. The people who are logging off for the duration of a war are the "level my Raven" types who quit at the first sign of adversity. EVE doesn't need them, and shouldn't pander to their lack of ability to defend themselves.

Yeah - but war declarations already screw up most Alpha's. I know the Caldaris typically fly Cormorants with shield booster tanks - paper thin vs a proper F1 monkey alpha barrage.

The irony in that... alpha's being beat by alpha.

Anyway, we haven't been wardecced yet, but the moment we were, I'd actually just take a load off - move my stuff to that Caldari Customs warehouse nearby and then use my alt to continue industry and mining. If our Raitaru got destroyed? Who cares. We mine a lot, our five man group, and that loss would set us back about two weeks tops, most likely.

Home team (defenders) should have an advantage - and not one that can't be slathered in mercenary or alt account F1 firepower to negate. Attackers with significantly bigger forces should be discouraged to pick on tiny corps that they can swat like a fly. Problem is, there's very few arbitrary buffs or anything like that in EvE - and it's hard to design a mechanic to benefit the defenders that couldn't be abused by attackers.

Take cross-system mortars, for example. Before war starts, the attackers put a mortar barrage in one corner of the system. Second clock ticks to 0 and war starts, they alpha the defenders' mortars off the field. They then proceed to mortar the base the defenders are holed up in, destroy it, then alpha the leftovers. Voila, war pretty much over and corp destroyed in five minutes. This also doesn't discourage my mentality of go hide in an NPC station either - it encourages it as they are indestructible strongholds.
#17 - 2017-03-27 03:17:34 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
mkint wrote:
The incentive is to do what's fun. If netflix, or some other game is going to be more fun than EVE, then that's what people are going to do. And if that's what they are doing, then both wardecs and CCP are failing.


This is only a problem if you suck at EVE. The people who are logging off for the duration of a war are the "level my Raven" types who quit at the first sign of adversity. EVE doesn't need them, and shouldn't pander to their lack of ability to defend themselves.

That is ridiculous. That attitude is toxic. People who think like that are what's wrong with EVE. People who want "EVE: Newbros Unwelcome" really need to not be part of EVE, or really any community.

CCP is a business, EVE is a product. If CCP can't sell EVE, then they are failing. Period. The way your hands drift below your belt while you suicide gank in rookie systems doesn't enter into it.

My stance on this idea is still: it might not be THE solution to better wardecs, but it has got some compelling aspects that could inspire something closer to what would work.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

#18 - 2017-03-27 04:45:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
mkint wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
What, exactly, is stopping the defender from taking the time to gather intel, to scout their targets, to set backups for themselves so they can continue carebearing, to maximize their own safety, all before they are ever under threat?

A) because most of them are rookies and don't know any better.

and B) because they aren't the ones declaring war, they don't even know who their future targets are going to be.

Maybe you've been an NPC in someone else's mega-alliance for too long, but have you really never experienced the imbalance in the wardec system? A corp that couldn't even fill up a squad in fleet can completely decimate a corp that couldn't fit in a wing, and that seems to be the primary use of the system. EVE shouldn't be easy. Not for the defenders, but also not for the attackers.


Rookies learn like everyone else. If they don't understand basic mechanics of Highsec, then it's the games fault. Simply informing of what it means to join a corp would solve those issues.

And honestly with the current state that wardecs are in right now, about 90% of the time of being decced it's going to be from long lasting merc alliance, IE, VMG, Marmite, DAW, PE and so on. So gather information about them is fairly easy.

Being in Highsec, and being on both ends of the rope, I can tell you it's not hard to find where merc groups live and station, and it's not hard avoiding them either.

You complaint can also be used against Lowsec and Nullsec as well. It's fair for a newbie starter corp to go to lowsec because they don't know where the bad guys are. It part of the game to know and understand where you want to live and keep up to date intel on it.

It seems that your main complaint is that the Game doesn't tell you what it needs to tell you. More than Wardecs needing to be changed, which I'm not saying they don't. But I don't think this idea is completely right.
#DeleteTheWeak
#19 - 2017-03-27 05:25:10 UTC
mkint wrote:
That is ridiculous. That attitude is toxic. People who think like that are what's wrong with EVE. People who want "EVE: Newbros Unwelcome" really need to not be part of EVE, or really any community.


No, the toxic attitude is this idea that EVE should be welcoming and cater to everyone's desires. This is in direct opposition to the idea that EVE was founded on: a cold, dark universe in which the strong survive and the weak are slaughtered. EVE is NOT a game for everyone, nor should it be. People who want to farm PvE content in safety and quit at the first hint of adversity are not the kind of people who should be able to succeed in EVE. Altering the core identity of the game to please these people would be a huge mistake.

Also, let's not pretend that this is just about newbies. Many of the people who whine about war decs are well out of their newbie stages, they just insist on being able to PvE all day without any risk. True newbies, people who are just trying to learn how the game works, are not worth a war dec and are most often found in NPC corps that can't be a target anyway.

Quote:
CCP is a business, EVE is a product. If CCP can't sell EVE, then they are failing. Period. The way your hands drift below your belt while you suicide gank in rookie systems doesn't enter into it.


And yet here EVE is, after well over a decade of people complaining about how being hostile to new players will kill the game. Meanwhile competing game after competing game has failed and died. The concept is indisputably successful whether you like it or not.
#20 - 2017-03-27 14:21:32 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
And yet here EVE is, after well over a decade of people complaining about how being hostile to new players will kill the game. Meanwhile competing game after competing game has failed and died. The concept is indisputably successful whether you like it or not.

I guess you need to define successful.
The falling revenues from CCP's annual reports over the past few years, the reductions in staff in recent years no doubt as a result of those falling revenues and a general trend towards fewer characters online over the past few years and changes in the lives of the players themselves all point to a game that is failing not one that is successful.

EvE is at what may be the most critical point in it's history with regards to continued viability in the market and I hate to say this because long term player that still likes this game. Based on the direction things have been going over the last 2 to 3 years the game is in a slow (but accelerating) spiral to it's death and we will have to see if CCP has the vision, the will and the intestinal fortitude to do what is needed to save it.
3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump