Are Wardecs always going to be broken? Is a fix even possible?

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Hatch_Nasty

If you want to fairly redesign the wardec system, start from the assumption that everyone is war-eligible, and then figure out from there how to prevent abuse.

Your requirement is impossible. There’s virtually no way to keep an even playing field between a new small corp starting up, and a hundreds-strong vet entity like Blackflag who’s just wardeccing every weak easy target they can find. And CCP (and other devs) have already pointed how just how bad that is for a game.

However, if you have a solution to what I consider impossible, I’m sure we’d all love to see it.

That said, if we were to accept that all entities must be wardeccable, then my proposal still gives all those entities more options, more ability to play the game on their own terms, more agency, more rewards and more incentives than the current system (or than any other proposal I’ve ever seen).

So change the proposal to “every entity can be wardecced” for your own counter-proposal. Now what do you see wrong with it?

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Glenduil

And for a fee of 200m, attackers can force a small corp with a limited core to become war eligible.

So once again, if you’re a small corp with a structure, you are indeed war eligible.

No, they give the target agency. The corp now has meaningful choices to make: either take down their structure, take it down but put it back up somewhere else, negotiate with the other corp, or prepare for war. And they have 3 weeks to make the decision. And it cost someone 200 million to trigger it.

As said, the restrictions on the structure plus the 10,000km spacing make it unlikely anyone would even care about it. Please also review @stefnia_Freir 's thoughtful post on possible structure limitations for non-eligible corps:

Are Wardecs always going to be broken? Is a fix even possible?

They could had smaller structures that would not be war eligible nor core dependant, while not disputing a local resource like a moon. The issue is that would allow corporations at war to use such a structure with an alt corporation, to have staging in a space occupied by at-war corporation. This may be solved by having those structure not have a modifiable ACL, therefore only corp members could dock/rep/be tethered/etc. . Actually I think raitarus and astrahus should be those ones : don’t r…

As always, if you have a better suggestion for how to give small, non-war eligible corps a chance to experiment with a structure/home base of their own without causing bigger problems elsewhere (eg. non-removable structures), then please discuss it here.

[Hatch_Nasty]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Your requirement is impossible.

I don’t think it’s impossible. Difficult? Perhaps.

@Kezrai_Charzai

However, if you have a solution to what I consider impossible, I’m sure we’d all love to see it.

I made such a suggestion, very early on in this thread:

@Hatch_Nasty

My thought is that every non-NPC corp should be war eligible, BUT the fees to declare and maintain wars should be proportional to the size delta between participants:

• Small corp vs small corp: $$$.
• Small corp vs big corp: $$$$$$.
• Big corp vs small corp: $$$$$$.
• Big corp vs big corp: $$$.

Further, the fees for each active war beyond the first should increase exponentially (i.e., it should be costly to run a war, and very costly to run multiple wars at the same time).

We can argue methods in the margins, but as I’ve mentioned multiple times in this thread, I believe profit incentives are a problem with the present war dec system. Wars should not generally be profitable. They should be costly affairs.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

Ok.

So can someone explain how someone like myself, in my own small corp (for now) would fit in all this with no structure in space?

I’ve read all the posts but to be honest some are a touch confusing about how you suggest it would affect different corps.

[Rocket_Hellfire]

Wardecs are a meaningless crutch for bullies. Plain and simple. There is no purpose behind them other than to pick on a group and force them out of the game.

[Rocket_Hellfire]

@Spacetramp_Drago

So can someone explain how someone like myself, in my own small corp (for now) would fit in all this with no structure in space?

No structure = no wardec. You can’t be wardec’d nor declare a wardec. Simple as that.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

I know how it is now, I was just wondering how their proposals would change that, if at all.

[Hatch_Nasty]

Under what I proposed, your small corp would become war eligible (as would mine). It would be relatively low cost for me to wardec you or vice versa, but very expensive for a large corp to wardec either of us, and even more expensive for them to wardec both of us at the same time.

[Spacetramp_Drago]

Which would only result in me logging my alt on sat in an NPC corp, and you losing isk.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Spacetramp_Drago

So can someone explain how someone like myself, in my own small corp (for now) would fit in all this with no structure in space?

You could choose to remain exactly as now, small corp, no structure, non-war-eligible.

However if all features of my proposal were adopted, these changes would apply:

• You would have a 5% Protection Tax on bounty, Project_Discovery, AIR Daily Goals and mission reward payouts over 100,000 ISK.
• You would have the option to place a single medium low-cost-core structure in space without becoming war-eligible.
• You would have the option to become war-eligible without an expensive structure, by posting a War Indemnity Bond for a little over 50 million ISK (much cheaper than a structure).

Becoming war-eligible ( should you choose to accept it ) would remove the 5% tax and allow you to earn bonuses on ISK, LP, mining, bounties, Evermarks, and hisec NPC POCO tax discounts.

It also means that if your corp grows and you end up being war-eligible by choice, then you would have viable methods for yourself and your corp members to conduct the war and gain rewards from it.

[Hatch_Nasty]

@Spacetramp_Drago

you losing isk

Exactly. No profit motive. Which means if I wardec’d you (or you wardec’d me) there’s some other reason for it.

[Glenduil]

@Kezrai_Charzai

It also means that if your corp grows and you end up being war-eligible by choice, then you would have viable methods for yourself and your corp members to conduct the war and gain rewards from it.

Okay, how big are the rewards? Would they cover the cost of standing your ground against a corp much more powerful than you? Do you have a ballpark figure in relation to the cost of lost ships?

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Glenduil

Do you have a ballpark figure in relation to the cost of lost ships?

It’s hard to set a number to the rewards, as they depend on corp size, attacker size, activity levels etc.

To give some idea, the Reputation & Reliability system: ‘Reliability’ bonuses of up to 8% (4% Personal, 4% Corp) on Standings, Mining, Evermarks, and as a discount on NPC POCO taxes whenever you are in a player corp.

‘Reputation’ bonuses of up to 8% (4% Personal, 4% Corp) on ISK and LP earnings are available when you’re in a war-eligible player corp. If the corp becomes engaged in a war, 50% bonus are applied to both, so up to 12% bonus earnings in all the above areas.

I was asked in-game ‘Why split R&R into Personal/Corp’. This was done so the Corp has a permanent portion to manage, even if players come and go. Which can help (or hinder) with recruiting. But it’s the members who actually earn those points, so they get their own to take with them if they move corps.

As for War rewards, that will depend entirely on the size and activity of the corps involved. Let’s pick an example: Your 8-man corp is 'decced by an 80-person corp. Your war bond is 66 million. Their war bond is 210 million. Your corp of 8 completes 16 points of War Action missions, for a per-capita total of 2.0. Their corp of 80 kills 10 of your ships, but those ships and their interdicted tasks were only worth 60 points total, for a per-capita score of 0.75.

Winner: You. Payout: (2.0 / (2.0 + 0.75)) * 210 Million ISK = 152.7 Million ISK to you.

Now if you completed only 7 War Action points, but held losses down to only 1 Destroyer (2 points) and 1 task (1 point), then your per-capita is 0.875 and theirs is 0.0375 :

Winner: You. Payout: ( 0.875 / (0.875 + 0.0375)) * 210 Million ISK = 201.4 Million ISK to you.

So the key will be completing War Action tasks with as few losses as possible. On the other hand, it will get more defender ships out in space doing things, which gives the attacker more targets. So more activity and likely more destruction; where being skilled at what you do counts for more than being the guy with 10x as many ships.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Hatch_Nasty

Under what I proposed, your small corp would become war eligible (as would mine). It would be relatively low cost for me to wardec you or vice versa, but very expensive for a large corp to wardec either of us

Of course, if a large corp was harassing the hell out of either of you, it would be very expensive for you to wardec them, and even if you did, you’d just get slaughtered, because there’s nothing to even the playing field.

And even if you did, and you somehow won, you’d come out relatively empty-handed because any loot you managed to get would be offset by the heavy war costs and your losses.

Which amounts to what we have now. Expensive wars that only war-abusers are very interested in, and the best option if you get wardecced is usually “don’t undock or don’t play”.

So it could probably be arranged to cut down on mass wardeccing (just the ‘exponential cost’ thing would do that) but I don’t see that it would change the underlying problems with any wars that do get declared.

And I’m sure there are plenty of ways for a small corp to annoy a large one, or a large one to harass a small one, comfortable in the knowledge that a war is too expensive and unprofitable to get declared on them.

That said, this system could probably be tweaked to be somewhat less abusable than the current ‘mass wardec for profit and drive thousands of players away from the game’ system. So it’s likely better than nothing. But not by much.

[Hatch_Nasty]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Of course, if a large corp was harassing the hell out of either of you, it would be very expensive for you to wardec them, and even if you did, you’d just get slaughtered, because there’s nothing to even the playing field.

You’re saying, a large corp somehow “harassing” but not wardeccing? In hisec, what would that harassment amount to? Ganking? Suspect baiting? Ninja looting? All the things that are possible today under the present mechanics?

You should stretch before you reach that hard.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Hatch_Nasty

ou’re saying, a large corp somehow “harassing” but not wardeccing?

Well yes, they’re possible under today’s system. But today’s system allows you to wardec them for 100million. You want to make it more expensive.

And there’s plenty of ways to harass. MTU shooting. Mission interference. Stealing the end drop from DEDs. Miner bumping. I have complete confidence in EVE players’ ability to find ways to annoy and inconvenience other players.

Plus, your proposal shares the key problem with so many other people’s (and CCPs) solutions: You want to remove options and activity from the game. Plus, it doesn’t address in any way the fact that players who end up wardecced just stop playing.

And it does zero for what would surely happen, which is X-man war corps deccing everything in the cheap range of whatever bounds you set, X/3 up to 3*X. Causing the exact same problems we already have.

In fact, it only took me about 20 minutes to break your system. Just have alts sitting in corps, and add or remove alts from your war-dec entity as needed to get into ‘affordable war’ range, then dec away. Then swap them over to your other war-dec entity, and dec from there.

No expense, no exponentials, but all the same abuses and game harm we have today.

My proposal is about adding content and options, making things more affordable, adding risk, levelling the playing field, giving smaller corps new growth options and rewards.

Yours is about taking options away. As I said, simple “one-tweak” solutions won’t work, and won’t add to the game. Generally they just take options away and solve nothing.

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Kezrai_Charzai

I know self-awareness isn’t really your strong point, but you do realize you’ve flipped from arguing that everyone should be at risk all the time, to “gosh this proposal might put more people at risk” as a criticism.

Sigh. No…you’re the one trying to minimise loss. I’m the one simply pointing out that your proposal may do the reverse. See…if you were not so busy with the ad hominems you might actually understand a point.

And yes…people should be at risk all the time. I’m not clear why a station should be treated any differently to a Golem or any other expensive ship for which a whole bunch of hoops don’t have to be jumped through before anyone can attack it.

Whatever happened to ‘don’t undock what you cannot afford to lose’ ? Why does that not equally apply to stations in space ?

@Kezrai_Charzai

One of the biggest flaws in EVE is that in many cases there’s no valid reason to take on more risk.

No. The biggest flaw in EVE is that we have people who have never done an activity seeking to advise on how to ‘fix’ it.

[Hatch_Nasty]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Well yes, they’re possible under today’s system. But today’s system allows you to wardec them for 100million

No it doesn’t, not if they don’t own a structure. Neither you, me, nor your Aunt Tilly can wardec Safety. (for example) no matter how much we’re willing to pay. That is a symptom of a broken system.

@Kezrai_Charzai

You want to remove options and activity from the game.

The only option I want to remove is the option to sit in a non-NPC corp and be war ineligible. That change was a hamfisted blunt instrument that never should have been implemented.

I started EVE in 2009 and have spent most of my time in small corps. When I started my first corp, the decision was a risk vs reward calculation: whether saving 11% tax was worth the risk of a wardec. The change to ineligible-by-default made that calculation meaningless. It was a step too far.

@Kezrai_Charzai

Plus, it doesn’t address in any way the fact that players who end up wardecced just stop playing.

It addresses the problem by mitigating war-for-profit and reducing wardec spam. The fewer players involved in one-sided wardecs, the fewer players logging out never to return.

@Kezrai_Charzai

And it does zero for what would surely happen, which is X-man war corps deccing everything in the cheap range of whatever bounds you set, X/3 up to 3*X.

Not if you set the base war cost sufficiently high and apply a ratio factor with exponential scaling. Say base cost, present 100m. Five man vs fifteen man corp, 3:1 ratio, cost for first wardec: 300m. Cost for second: 3b. Cost for third: 30b. How many wars can that corp sustain? Do the math for 20:1 and it gets even bleaker for the wardec farmers. Meanwhile 1:1 stays affordable at 100m, whether that’s 1000 vs 1000 or 5 vs 5.

@Kezrai_Charzai

In fact, it only took me about 20 minutes to break your system. Just have alts sitting in corps, and add or remove alts from your war-dec entity as needed to get into ‘affordable war’ range, then dec away. Then swap them over to your other war-dec entity, and dec from there.

And it takes me only 20 seconds to steel it again by locking corp recruitment during active wardec. If you’re an aggressor, your corp membership gets frozen when war is declared. No one enters, no one leaves. And then that aggressor corp is taking a risk. If you pad your corp with alts and your one-sided war turns two-sided, you may be kinda boned when the defender fights back or brings in allies.

Can the system still be gamed? Yes. Every system can be gamed. The goal is not perfection, but mitigation (making it more costly and difficult to abuse).

@Kezrai_Charzai

My proposal is about adding content and options, making things more affordable, adding risk, levelling the playing field, giving smaller corps new growth options and rewards.

Your proposal is a Rube Goldberg contraption that requires complete redevelopment of the entire wardec system. It represents probably hundreds if not thousands of developer hours. My system could probably be implemented by a single dev in a day or two.

@Kezrai_Charzai

As I said, simple “one-tweak” solutions won’t work, and won’t add to the game.

When you are dealing with complex systems it is always better to make small, incremental changes. This allows you to make the change, gather data, and analyze the result before making further changes. Sweeping, systemic changes like the one you’ve proposed are exactly the sort that introduce unforseen side-effects and unintended consequences.

[Gloria_Exercitus]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Plus, it doesn’t address in any way the fact that players who end up wardecced just stop playing.

Is that the fault of wardecs, or is it the fault of players who create some tiny corp that cannot possibly hope to defend itself and then plonk a station in space simply because they ‘can’ do ?

Whatever happened to responsibility ? There are non-wardec situations where we’d all agree a player was being irresponsible if they brought significant risk upon themselves. Yet somehow with wardecs it all gets flipped around and irresponsible people become poor victims who have to deal with those nasty PvP-ers.

Never mind that the station destruction is something the small corp brought on itself. Never mind that if they’d simply parked a blingy Golem in Uedama and left it there AFK everyone would think that irresponsible.

Yet somehow people can plonk stuff in space that they haven’t a hope in hell of defending and we have to alter the entire mechanics of the game to protect them from their folly.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Gloria_Exercitus

No…you’re the one trying to minimise loss.

It’s OK, I know you struggle to understand what’s actually been said.

Literally everything I’ve said is about increasing risk and defender participation. None of it has been about minimizing defender losses. Feel free to quote me anywhere I said the goal was to minimize defender losses.

The point is to increase risk and increase activity. That may incur some losses. You offset the losses by offering potential rewards for interesting activities and giving players choices. That’s how games work. That’s what the proposal’s about.

They stop working when you force players to suffer loss and engage in activities they have no interest in. That’s what we have now. It’s broken and stated by CCP to be a bad result.

Yet you keep defending it just as hard as you can. Sorry, but “give citadels a long range neut” doesn’t solve anything. Nor does “trap corp members in their wardec’d corp or force penalties on them”.

Try harder. You can understand the words if you just try. I know you can.