Design Workshop: WarDec Structures

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Good day to you,

So, first and foremost I ask that I’d be NOT moved into the Main War declaration thread.

The goal of this thread is to explore the idea of WarDec structures and design them so that they avoid the problems cited by CCP during EVE Vegas, rather than the WarDec system itself. Plus the Main War declaration thread has been started by someone who is against the idea of a War Structure.

Ok, now with that done.

So, during EVE Vegas 2018, CCP said they were considering the idea of using a requirement for a corp wanting to declare war to have a structure.
However they have identified several points that were seen as problems for the idea, as shown in this pic:

wkm2kyI

In case you can’t see the image, the problems are:

  • Existing Wars
  • Transferring Structure Ownership
  • Mutual Wars
  • Alliances

To this list I will add:

  • Dominance of Large, Siege-Dominant, Blocs
  • Synergy with Social Corps
  • Price Tag/Characteristics of War Structures

Some materials for inspiration:

I had previous Design Workshops, especially one about Structures that would be tied both Wars and Corps:

https://forums.eveonline.com/t/design-workshop-diplomatic-resorts/

And I also wrote two articles on a potential War Structure:

So the main goal is to resolve the problems CCP identified, and clarify what WarDec Structures should be about.

CCP has raised that they would be looking at the forums for discussion on that subject, so I invite everyone to participate in as long as it is with the goal of making WarDec Structures work.

Cheers,

1 Like
2

You know CCP won’t be able to change that right?

Also TL;DC for your blog article?

3

Really interesting ideas, I like that you tied into making HQs something for average corporations to fight over, though I wonder if that could lead to players farming each other for easier reputation gains. (I’d still rather do that than missions though to be honest)

Are there really that many benefits to reputation with NPC corps though? Is that enough incentive for players to choose to fight over just dropping corporation/using holding corporations?

4

Yeah, the goal for HQs would be to be something to fight over, the slots would be limited (as in dependent on the amount of stations in the system) and you could get there as a Corp/Alliance to get some bonuses.
Also, easier rep gains was considered as a reward, but what I focused on more was the idea of debuffs/buffs you would get as a Corp and Corp Missions (would be nice to make sure this is not an ISK faucet). The first one to give variance to EVE meta, the second to encourage people to Meet/Fleet-up.

Anyway, now with a bit more perspective, I’m thinking about decoupling the WarDec Structure from the HQ.
The HQ would be solely about Corp configuration/customization/limitations and making sure you target and are targeted by people “of your size”.

The WarDec Structure would then be free to focus on doing its thing.

5

Do I have to read the links? I see no ideas.

-1 no ideas in thread.

EDIT: OIC this is a repost of previously locked thread.

1 Like
6

Well, you want ideas? Here are some:

First off, about the problems CCP has talked about during the presentation.

I think for Existing Wars, Transfer of Structures, the solutions are pretty simple.
As CCP said, you can just have the non-structure decs lapse with no way of continuing them, then you switch the system over to the new declaration system using the WarDec Structure.
For Transfer of Structures, again as CCP said, you just have a prompt/request asking the receiving corp if they accept the structure, with full information on the giving corp (size, alliances, war decs, ect). The receiving will then have to make the conscious choice of receiving the structure and expose themselves to wars from the party that gave them the structure.
I personally do not see how Alliances could be a problem so I will let others people think on that.

Here I was talking about the fact that the bigger blocs who are able to raise enormous fleets with citadel-razing levels would be able to just go around and raze everyone’s war structure.

This is obviously a situation that needs to be avoided, High-Sec shouldn’t be about the Bigs mercilessly crushing everyone else, you have Null-Sec for that and it is designed so because there you have vast amount of SPACE as a balancing factor, not so much in High-Sec.

The obvious solution is to have entities being able to declare war only on entities close to their size.

The way you determine that is by comparing the size and modules of their war dec structure to the size and amount of their targets structure (ideally to their HQ). Thus PIRAT would not be able to just go around and invalidate everyone else wars unless they size down.

And for something a little bit more focused on ideas for WarDec structures themselves:

I think a WarDec structure should be needed in every single system where a War is to happen.
As in, if you want to be able to do War in Jita, you would have to drop a War structure there.
This would participate in increasing the points of interactions and the concept of Soft Targets for the defender.

I’m not sure though if that role of making a system eligible for War should be solely the role of the WarDec structure or be attributed to another structure (for example you would have the WarDec structure to declare a War, and you would the War Relay to make that War valid in the system it is deployed).

7

Interesting ideas there, I find the territoriality of war an interesting Concept as I also notice the lack of territoriality in high sec wars thus they seem pointless to an extend or only means to the end of inflicting financial damage and decreasing the ability of entities to interact with a part of eve.

I had another idea to require Corps or alliances to acquire a war declaration certificate for a Region which holds over a certain time. Having such a war declaration certificate for a Region they are allowed to declare war on a corporation in this Region.

As an example let’s take PIE and Ushra Khan (they come to my mind) they had to acquire war certificates PIE for example for all amarr regions to declare war on UshraKhan inside the amarr empire while Ushra Khan might acquire certificates for war declartation inside the minmatar republic to declare war on PIE inside the republic.

This would mean something like a Turf structure could appear.

Another idea was to create a new ship the “Representator” class dreadnaught, a bit smaller then a dreadnaughta bit bigger then a freighter it is able to use gates and lacks a jumpdrive. This ship then would be similar to the WarDec structures names above just mobile. It has one Special ability to “lay” in a System which Costs concord fee. Laying this ship establishes a “Domination Zone” and basicly Claims the System.

Claiming the System Returns an economical Prize “taxes” [I preferr to have some Motivator here] now Standing with the empire the corp laying such a ship may suddenly have a meaning. For positive Standing means the “laying Claim” is interpreted as “concordant” with the local authorities “laying Claim” in a System one has negative Standing is interpreted as “conflicting”.

And this “conflicting” gets a warning to cease Action or “unlay” the “Representator” within an hour after an hour the local authorities will lable it an “incursion” into their territory. At that Point the “Representator” will get a hefty Bounty provided by local authorities. And the System will be declared a warzone.

Well that is a start of an idea itself.

What I’m still thinking is what happens if two “Representators” “lay” in a System.

Overall kundos on the idea of WarDec structures.

8

That is one Hell of a Bold and Crazy idea lol!

And it has some weight lore-wise, you lay your claim to a system by having a Big-Ass Ship there with the Biggest Guns Around!!

I just had the internal image of a battle between two of those things! That would be Glorious!

9

It boils also down to the diea to give war a Winning/losing condition (destruction of ship or enforced removement) that is visible and a territioriality which means it is kept a clearly arranged spatial set up (a Location/territory which can be understood by human mind).

Additional pro would be that no Body can Claim a System alone 24/7 without the help of another “Representator”. And territorial Claim is active, not throw away passive, someone has to be there to lay and claim a solar System.

What I’ve been overthinking and that is an interesting part: that for a “representator” to “lay legally” in a System that corp or alliance Needs at least a Standing of 3.0 with the empire the high sec System belongs to. In all other cases the laying is illegally.

Illegally laying “representator” are open to attacks without concord Response. They still collect “taxes” however anyone can shoot them. They are not attacked by concord however the empire Posts a Region wide warning that in solar System this “representator” lays in there is an illegitime “player incursion”, additonal ships of the corp alliance are open to be fired upon without concord response in the specific Empires territory. Player attacking the perpetrators will however lose concord protection for ten minutes of an Action against the perpetrators or helping someone attacking a perpetrator.

On the bright side wiht 3.0 Standing of the corp/the alliance “taxes” flow in and with better Standing the ammount of taxes increases.
Additional this means that Agent runners are not only a style of getting isk yet can actively support pvp play styles.

Next Topic recources

The recources available in high sec are ore up to isogen proving one, low end ice, Standing with npc agents, and planetary products, loot from missions.

For high sec war to be high sec war it seems reasonable to be fueld by recources from high sec Sources. This way it seems reasonable that the “representator” is build with planetary products and easy accesible Minerals. So no excessive running for null or wh ore is necessary.

The Standing would Play a role in the legality of tax collection and ammount collected.

so much thoughts for today.

10

One easy out solution which ccp could apply and also this might sound interesting I dislike it:

Mimicing the Player playercorp relation to the playercorp playeralliance strucure.

Means, a Player corp is founded within an npc training alliance as a player starts in an npc training corp. There are four racial npc training alliance and the Player corp is founded in the one the corpfinder’s race is. Here the Player corp can not be wardecced. It can not Claim sov space.

I realy dislike that solution.

11

Oh we totally agree on the need for a Winning/Losing condition.

However, as intriguing as I find the idea, I don’t think that a ship would be suited to be that in High-Sec.

First, for lore reasons. High-Sec is the dominion of the NPC Empires. They have their navies there, the systems belong to them and they act very much like they’d be ready to defend it against who’d try to lay a claim on it.
Imagine their reaction when a bigass ship comes to the center of the system and the corp behind it says that it’s using it to claim that system as theirs…

And second, for a more practical reason. You couldn’t have someone manning the ship 24/7. If the enemy comes when the ship is unmanned they have a free pass at removing your claim.

Structures do not have those problems and I think they are a better kind of win or lose condition.

You don’t have to worry about the structure when you go to bed, at worst it will be reinforced giving you time to react.

Don’t get me wrong though. I think it is an interesting and bold idea. I’m just not sure it is suitable for that case.

Again, bold and intriguing design.

It’s good that you are dealing with the way the NPC Empires and Corps would see those claims. Essentially, without the proper reputation you would open yourself to be attacked by other players.

Well, if you do not have a way to make the corp laying the claim lose reputation with the Empire, then that scenario of players attacking the perpetrator will never happen.

Taxes as a reward for a system would be an interesting incentive for war. Maybe even the best kind of incentive you could come around for High-Sec.

You would have to then get absolutely everything taxed, like the rewards delivered by agents, or the repairs in the system.

Anyway, to be clear, I do not think a big ass ship is the best win/lose conditions you could have for war. A structure seems more appropriate.

12

Because structures are so much funnier to shoot at /s

13

I agree here it is far from the best win/lose condition then again if we think it through maybe ccp can note down what we found out about this idea.

The idea derives from the winning losing condition of dust which I saw a video on once. I mentally played it through as if this would be a scenario for the real game which it isn’t.

14

So, back at it, I have spent some time thinking about Abyssal stuffs and I thought about the different tiers they have, and they made me think about how sec status act as a sort of tier and how nicely they could be tied to different levels of wardecs and WarDec Structures.

So far I’m pretty sure that for a WarDec system where you don’t have the bigger blocs threatening all structures and wars, you would need one structure that sets the “level” of the Corporation (the HQ) and another one that properly declares the wardec (the Flag).

The HQ would be the key here, as it would decide who you can contest, where, and who can contest you.

  • They would need to determine the size, characteristics, and capabilities of the Corp.

For example, your Corp would be limited to 10 people because you have X HQ.

  • They would need to be limited by the security status of the system.

You would need a HQ in a 0.9 or less to be able to become a 20-man corp for example.

  • They would dependent on Stations, and thus be linked to a finite resource.

Taking into account the size of High-Sec (1100 systems approx), you could accommodate 2000 Corps assuming an average of 2 stations per system.

For the HQ you would have different sizes, from Small, up to XL (yes, XL), and the size would act as the levels of the Corp.

A quick prototype of what it could be for the Small:

  • Size: Small
  • Once per Corporation only.
  • Sets your Corp to Level 1.
  • Can only be anchored in 1.0 or 0.9 systems.
  • Can only be anchored within 200 to 500 km of a Station.
  • 15 minutes deployment time.
  • Slot Layout: 0H, 0M, 0L, 0 Rig, 1 Service
  • Can only Diplomatic services in the Service slots.
  • Low Power Mode Hitpoints (shields / armor / hull): 300,000 / 300,000 / 800,000
  • High Power Mode Hitpoints (shields / armor / hull): 800,000 / 800,000 / 800,000
  • Resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 20 / 20 / 20 / 20
  • Damage Cap: 1000 dps
  • Shield and Armor can be attacked at once.
  • Reinforces the same way as the FLEX structures.

For bigger sizes you would have:

  • Higher level, with another Small (Small 2) giving Level 2, a Medium giving level 3, Large giving level 4, X-Large giving level 5.
  • More Slots and Rigs, Medium giving 2 Service slots, Large giving 1 additional Rig, and X-L giving 3 Service slots and 3 Rig slots.
  • Requirement to be anchored in a lower security system. 0.8 for Small 2, 0.7 for Medium, 0.6 for Large, 0.5 for X-Large.
  • Higher EHP and Damage Cap.
  • More Reinforcements.
  • Can only be attacked once all Flags of this Corporation have been destroyed.

Now the key point would be that if your HQ is of Level 3, you would only be deccable by Corporations of level 3 and lower.

This should ensure that there is some proper competition that is deemed fair and engaging by all parties involved, the fact that Flags would act as a protection would force Corporations to wage war in order to ensure the security of their Corp.

Next I will go on on Flags, I think I have figured out something that would be interesting.

15

There’s already skills for corp sizes, no need to make things more complicated than they ever need to be…

People already have a limited understanding of how corps even work, just keep that in mind

Oh and it goes against the sandbox ofc

16

Skills for corps cannot be destroyed.

Yet.

This is a way to actually give a fail condition to corporations.
You got your HQ destroyed? You failed at the Corporation game.
A Corporation that got its HQ destroyed would revert back to a Level 0 Corp. Or to the moniker you guys like so much, to a Social Corp.

The tradeoff is that until then, they can only be decced by those of their level or lower.

This gives a clear way to sort the wheat from the chaff, you, out of anyone there, should like it.

17

Deccers will just keep a level 0 corp to dec everyone above

10/10 best idea

Come back when you have a well thought out idea

18

That’s actually a good point.

Outside of you ignoring all the kind of limitations that could be placed on a Level 0 Corp.

But still, it would make sense to limit the ability to wage war at Level 0.

Only targeting Level 1 Corps and limited to 1.

Is that crippling enough?

19

People will just make 150 solo corps, put them in an alliance and dec everyone

Checkmate

20

I actually see no problem with that.

Each one would leave behind Flags and a HQ that others couldn’t help them defend and the defender could poke them on.

Everything going as expected.