Great, lots more ideas today, thank you all!
Cool. Finally, some details!
.
.
.
Wow, that’s a lot of details. Gonna take a while to digest all that. m tight on time tongiht so probably check back in tomorrow.
Meantime, keep up the good work everyone, I think we have some pretty good dialogue going here.
Clarification: Why is the defender paying at all? I don’t care about a war wallet. Why is the defender paying at all? A corporation should not have the power to do anything that forces any kind of payment by another corporation.
The defender should not have to pay anything.
Call it a war bond, war wallet, war debt- whatever- No amount of ISK owned by the defender should be deducted by the game just because another corp initiated a war dec. That’s wrong.
In addition, I don’t like the idea of higher taxes, extortion money to Concord, less money from missions (which already pay way too little), and bounties. These are not incentives. These are punishments for not throwing everything you have at larger corps. Punishments are not incentives.
200 million for winning by doing “war tasks”? Please elaborate. Are you proposing that CCP initiate mini-games? “Mine 200,000 units of Veldspar for the war effort! Must be done in the same system as your headquarters so that you can become easier targets!” What kind of tasks are you proposing? I can’t see, “Do delivery missions for the war effort- must deliver goods to your HQ past the gate camp of the attacking corp!” being something that will win a war when an attacking corp declares war on you.
You do know how much ships and fits cost, right? Penalizing corps for taking the smart economic way out with these new points that apply permanent penalties while giving the larger team even more monetary rewards will just make it even more profitable than it already is to war dec smaller corps.
Maybe that was your goal. I may have misunderstood. It seems the goal is for everyone to find someone smaller to get these rewards just to avoid or “pay off” all the penalties you’re going to get when a larger corp knocks on your door.
Hey look at that! The system does work!
@Kezrai_Charzai / @Dirk_Kajhone
I’ve read the multiple attempts to find a “failsafe” system but I have to remind everyone to keep it simple.
Any concept that you can’t explain to a total newb in less then a minute - and he could then rephrase it in his own words - is too complex.
I know that some people like to invent concepts because the have fun doing braingames and trying to adress all possible issues, but that quickly leads to overengineering. Please keep in mind that EVE is already overcomplex and in many areasy totally unnessessary so. That too is a reason many people won’t even try it. If the game looks like you need a Master degree in economics, physics and law to understand it, that makes it not very appealing to a large player base that just want to come in, enjoy their time (and pay for the servers and future development while doing so).
The two most urgent problems that needs to be adressed are:
Wars are currently a pure, mostly riskless, math-issue, giving a wardeccing entity a 100% guaranteed profit for each of them because the loot of a single core already pays for the whole cost of the wardec. And every other loot comes on top of that.
– In combination with –
Wardeccers can mass-declare and simultaenously threaten thousands or even tenthousands of players, they don’t have to make any kind of evaluation or “wise decision” who they target. They don’t need reasons other than wanting to grind money from basically anyone daring to anchor a station.
You can adress both points with rather simple fixes and thus remove probably 95%+ of the current problems:
1. make wardecs more expensive than cores by quite a margin. (OR remove cores as a requirement for basic functionality as a corporation home, just require them for industrial purposes)
Example: Initially the act of declaring war costs 500M + another 500M for each week you want to keep it up. If the attackers can’t score a kill within a week, the war is automatically invalidated and you can’t target the same corp for at least 3 months.
This would make the first week cost 1B, thus being a net-loss for the attacker if the target has only 1 M-citadel and is active enough to evacuate it. This alone would reduce the number of wardecs against small corps by a huge amount because core-grinding isn’t profitable any more. But people still could go to war if they have a political, strategical or personal issue with the target corporation.
2. limit the number of wars a corporation/alliance can issue to force them to make decisions that have consequences. This enables them to target groups that they deem to be valuable targets for their “PvP” interests, like large Nullsec alliances or WH corporations that do logisitics in HS. But they can’t throw out a 100(s) wardecs each week any more to target or keep at war basically anyone at once without even having any relation or issue with the target.
Example:
This means, the big wardeccing groups either focus on large lucrative mega-targets or if they want to keep mass-targeting smaller groups, they would have to essentially split-up a lot. With each squad being on their own corp, needing their own War HQ, paying their own wardec fees and so on. Making it all way too costly to mass-harass smaller groups for extremely low profit chances.
(Adressing constant member-hoppings to shift around numbers as nessessary would be pretty simple by implementing long delay timers before you can switch membership between wardeccing corporations.)
And then lets just see what happens. If players really find loopholes and keep curbstomping the weakest targets possible even without a financial interest, just to get their easy beatdowns, this could be adressed further if nessessary. There are always some thumbscrews available to punish undesired behavior.
I love this- Remove cores and increase the cost of wardecing.
No adding unfavorable tax increases, bounty decreases, mining decreases, and more and calling it punishments (I mean - incentives) to defenders to force them into earning that participation trophy while rewarding the attackers with even more money and loot and salvage.
It’s all in the original proposal. War Tasks are similar to AIR Daily Opportunities tasks. While I understand you have questions, I’m not going to endlessly re-answer things that have already been posted. Original proposal is here, feel free to re-read:
The original proposal says the war bond is posted, and losses are deducted from it if you lose. You don’t pay anything at all just by being war dec’d, and you have methods to win and get money from the attackers bond.
If you don’t want to pay anything, then remain non-war-eligible, just like now. If you want more rewards than that, you take some risks. If you take risks, you might have to pay when you lose. That’s the nature of the game. This system gives players a fair shot at higher rewards for reasonable risks.
Most people don’t like paying anything, that doesn’t automatically negate payments. Your own preference appears to be “put up a structure and when wardeccecd, walk away from it”. Which costs you billions for the structure, core, rigs, etc. (No you can’t evacuate the core - decommissioning takes 7 days.)
So yeah, if you want to pay billions, pay billions. Or pay 5% tax on things that aren’t massive earners for most people anyway. Corps mostly use stations to run industry, manu, research etc. from anyway, the tax doesn’t affect those.
Yes, you misunderstood. First, being able to set up your own medium structure, safe from wardecs, is a big win and can offset the 5% fee right there. Second, ships and fits ‘cost’ only if you lose them. Upwards of 90% of wardecs incur zero losses on either side. It’s not actually easy to track down and kill random players.
This proposal turns wardecs from a numbers game, “dec everything and hope you spot a few good kills” style, to a contest of skill and determination in the actions you already normally take. It’s not about providing perfect safety, it’s about giving players more options to play more ways with a reasonable risk-reward factor.
TBH your posts read like you just don’t want wardecs to happen at all. If that’s the case then presumably you prefer the current system where just don’t put up a structure, and poof zero wardecs for you. I personally disagree with that system (CCP already outlined all sorts of problems with it), but if it works for you then why seek any change at all?
Ah well then every system in EVE is obviously too complex. Sit in Rookie chat sometime and see how long it takes to explain to new players just to move their ship.
Regardless, EVE has plenty of complex things that are transparent to the player. Players don’t understand weapon calcs and they don’t need to:
Chance to hit=0.5((Angular×40,000 mTracking×Signature)2+(max(0, Distance−Optimal)Falloff)2)
They don’t need to because it’s transparent to the player. Put turret on ship, put ammo in, click target, click turret. Poof done.
A proposal has to be complete to be implemented, that doesn’t mean every new player entering the game needs to see or understand the full mechanics in under a minute. This proposal has virtually zero ‘what the player sees’ changes from the current system, except that defenders also get an interface like AIR Opportunities to conduct their side of the war.
Is AIR Opportunities too complex for players to understand?
No, you can address specific aspects of certain issues with simple fixes, that are already broken. 500M + 500M means no wardecs for small corps, only huge rich corps need apply. “No target same corp” only means you dec from multiple corps, then add allies in. “Limit wars” again only means needing more corps to dec them from.
As with @Hatch_Nasty 's proposal, this would be better than nothing, better than allowing relatively cheap mass wardecs for profit. But it does nothing at all for the greater issues (eg. it has zero for defender agency or for increasing activity), it does nothing for retention other than limit the numbers (if you’re dec’d the best option is still not to play).
“Hammer them down and then if they find loopholes, hammer them harder” really isn’t the way to go about game design. Or behavior modification in general, really.
It’s back to the case of you see a behavior you don’t like and you want to remove it from the game and force people not to engage in game activity. You don’t address the kind of options and agency that keep people playing the game. It doesn’t even address CCP’s own interests.
CCP has, I suspect, already ‘fixed’ the issue of mass wardecs: if you don’t want to be wardec’d then don’t put up a structure. If you put up a structure then you’ve accepted “don’t fly what you can’t lose” and the situation is fine.
CCP wants people putting up expensive structures, they want them blown up, they want them destroyed. They may be worried that it costs them players, but they have no vision for a system where defenders would actually choose to participate.
Just making mass wardecs go away and forcing war corps to be huge so they can afford more wars only ‘fixes’ one problem, causes others, and just ignores the rest.
Sheesh…so much overly complex waffle in this thread.
How about someone just ask the most blindingly obvious and simple question…why are people even placing structures in space, in the first place, that they cannot possibly hope to defend ?
Why not? Seriously… why not? Why shouldn’t someone build a structure? They’re awesome! Who cares about defending them? They’re cheap. In the electronics world, we call that “Run to Fail”. It means that something isn’t worth the trouble to repair- or in this case- defend. Why would someone? Does no one understand how cheap they are vs the cost of expensive ships? I’ve got ships that cost more than that thing. It’s “Run to Fail”.
Well, yes, precisely. I mean a cheap station is cheaper than most of the blingy marauders out there. So why do they need some special form of protection ?
You are making my point for me. Yes, they are cheap. But if someone is going to whine that their cheap station got blapped…why are they even placing it in the first place ?
You can’t have it both ways. Either they are dirt cheap and expendable, in which case what is all the fuss about…or they are of value, in which case why break the golden rule of 'dont undock what you cannot afford to lose ’ .
By the way…I was very much like you when I started Eve. I was anti ganking, etc. As I learned more about the game I totally changed that view and became completely pro ganking, pro wardecs, etc. I came to realise EVE would be BORING without those risks.
I’m not anti-ganking. I’ve stated that at least ten times. I’m anti-wardecing. If you want to wage war without Concord, do it in Null or Low security space.
and this thought process is what makes you a part of the problem on why wardecs are broken.
Empire Building IS PvP…
I can see why you dont live in null but stick with BF, Wrecking Machine, and AO…
MAybe you should go play CoD or something…EvE does not seem to be fully your forte.
Blah blah. I have ‘null access’ on one of my chars. I have large numbers of kills in null. You do realise I have 18 chars that get up to all manner of antics ?
And now that some wardeccr has properly addressed the elephant in the room…
Let me say this,
To fix War decs:
PvPr’s need to be forced to accept Pver’s into their ranks or do PvE themselves.
and
PvE’rs need to be forced to accept/do PvP at the same time.
I have a few thoughts on this if anyone wants to entertain them.
and i care the number of characters you have why???
What does that have to do with your attitude on the situation?
I’ve no idea what you are rambling on about. I totally agree that ‘empire building is PvP’. I’m the one arguing for more PvP, not less.
Nooo…if I wanted to play against NPCs I’d log off and play Homeworld. I don’t pay to log into a massive multiplayer ( not multi-npc ) game to fight NPCs.
i was not rambling, i do not see the relevance to this topic about how many characters you have.
i sen some proposal/ideas that rightly needed shot down, which you did.
is not wholly conducive with:
then you dont want to be part of empire building…
Go join Safety and be a full time ganker…or quit EvE.
The Era you long for is long gone and wont come back.
No…I don’t want to be part of NPC empire building. I want to be part of player empire building. Why would I ever want to fight for some faction that CCP are never going to allow to win or lose decisively ? It’s a complete waste of time. I’ll take my chances with AO and other player corps…fighting real battles against real people.