Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas

release
devblog
official

(Peter Yurgin) #223

And it is 100% because of how successful you guys are. They mentioned this at Eve Vegas keynote. Not by name but 90% of all wars are from like 5 corps or something like that. And their kill ratio was too high. They made up that player corps after war stop playing eve, but the players actually leave the corp back into an NPC corp or go into another player corp. It was bogus statistics to make us feel bad for them.


(Travonus Trapoll) #224

On the other hand If i was to put a system in i would put a Mercenary contract system in. Just like our contract system now only you link the corp/alliance you wish to be attacked and link the corp/alliance that will attack it. Pay a fee for the contract and give a reward to the corp/alliance for full filling the contract.

That’s how it should be. But I agree they want us to feel bad about players paying us for doing a great job… its silly.


(Lorelei Ierendi) #225

This is at least a much better than the original ideas, require the attacker to also have a structure.

Having an alliance with one corporation having a structure… and if a war gets too hot… then remove that corporation from the alliance = war over for the alliance 24hrs later? It’s like an equivalent to the old “closing the corporation” method of avoiding war decs…


(Aeliyah Thor) #226

Excellent. Can join a corp and start to enjoy the game again. Sweet time to come back :grin:

Dancing with joy, finally something good happens in New Eden.


(cMo McCloud) #227

Blockquote
https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vol_Arm_OOO
People dont go around wholesale killing structures because structures are cancer; structure bashing in eve is the absolute worst form of pvp in the game - its boring and wholly unrewarding.

You sir could not be more wrong,


(Peter Yurgin) #228

You could’ve always joined my corp. Or many other corps out there would have had you no problem.

—> You actually mean you can now create your own corp and play by yourself without much interaction from other player corps in your area.


(Peter Yurgin) #229

And what was the problem with that? It took isk out of the game from their corp accounts. It couldn’t be done forever.


(Arrendis) #230

It can for now. Those are going away, after all. Nothing should be built with those at its root.

But more, the issue here isn’t ‘I can’t engage in war without a structure’, it’s ‘people without structures can engage in predatory and exploitive behaviors against me and I have no way to retaliate’.

Also,

Congratulations on ensuring that nobody can ever take space? I mean, if you can’t engage in war without having territory, then you can’t get territory until you have territory.

You know as soon as POS’s go away, that’s screwed, right? Cans don’t tether.


(Arrendis) #232

I’d say up that, and base it on how large you are. A 10 man corp decing a 10 man corp shouldn’t be extremely expensive—they probably can’t afford ‘extremely expensive’. Goonswarm choosing to pick on some guy’s 1-man alt-corp? Yeah, make us pay through the nose.

Unless it’s Gevlon. All wardecs on Gevlon come free. :wink:


(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #233

I think he was referring to the Cemetery that CCP promised to preserve
http://www.aziaburgi.me.uk/cemetery.php


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #234

I basically agree the wardec system needs a revamp, and I think this structure thing is a fine first step that has some potentially fun implications.

However, this is the main issue I hope the next steps will resolve: people can now engage in all sorts of jack-assery (such as ore nicking and suicide ganking etc) from a player corporation without there being a counter-measure. (Yes, they always could from an NPC corp, of course, but at least there was the trade-off of not being able to have your own.)

That said, I would also like to add that the countermeasure of deccing a thief corp or a ganker corp is not a very stellar one as is. Sure you can do it, but it results to very, very boring wars for both parties more often than not, and once the decs are over there is no permanent effect. I don’t have a solution to that, but just saying a war dec system that results in better quality wars (and by better quality I guess I mean more frequent explosions) would be a very welcome thing.


(Arrendis) #235

Yeah. Right now, those cans can’t be raided, they can’t be shot, because they’re in a POS.

Once that goes away, they will, too. Because players are jerks.

What they ought to do on this particular issue is fold it into the propaganda structures, and get those out before POS’s go away. Have the cemetary available as a type of monument, and make that one owned by CONCORD.


(Dirk Kajhone) #236

I posted some ideas on changing the WarDec structure and including something like mercenary contacts a while back. Unfortunately a kindly mod promptly merged it into a thread where the discussion would never be seen again.

Post starts here: The Mother of All War(dec proposal)s

And goes for about 9-10 posts. Then its back to the insanity thread.

One of the points I made in the original was, “any new system, how would you break/exploit/abuse it”?

With the December changes, I would break/exploit/abuse by:

  • Griefing as much as I could, but not owning a structure. (The “You can’t touch this” approach)
  • Acting however I wanted, including egregious griefing, baiting someone into wardeccing me/paying for it,
    then removing or transferring my structure away to end the war.
  • Looking like a small defenseless corp with an easy structure to hit, baiting someone into wardeccing me, then joining my alliance to pound on them.
  • Opportunistically joining an alliance to engage in war when I wanted to war, and then drop from the alliance when the action gets too hot for me.

The current proposals also do nothing to encourage actual fighting, they don’t help smaller corps get established and grow, they don’t represent “players making choices with consequences” because there are easy ways around all of the current proposed mechanics.

Basically this just looks like the same old corp-swapping techniques people have used for years, only with tying it to space structures.

The proposal I linked above includes tough player choices, with permanent effects, rewards for both sides to engage in wars, and ways for people to participate usefully in a war even if they can’t ‘win’ it. It also uses existing game mechanics to cut down on the programming budget.


(Rusty X5) #237

I think what CCP are trying to do here is valid, but most ppl here haven’t actually brought up the elephant in the room when it comes to Hi Sec PVP in any form…

Neutral Logistics

  1. Make upwell structure target suspect ships (the old POS did it) OR
  2. A character in a war can only be repped by someone in his corp/alliance in the same war, but this you would also have to restrict that rule to 0.5 and above as for obvious reason cause wardec are basically pointless in low and null.

Coding for this I cant see being too hard cause most of those mechanics they already have in game (cant RR sieged dread for eg.)

I just hope this it the ‘future iterations’ CCP are going to do.


(Rivr Luzade) #238

You could even have the 2 price systems in place at the same time. 10v10 corp: still 50M; 500v10: 500M; 10v500: 50M. That’s still more productive at fixing things than the current suggested structure limitation.

Would be interesting to know how many wars are being declared by small corps against small corps.


(Peter Yurgin) #239

You can’t do this if you are war dec’d.

The war doesn’t transfer to your alliance like that. It basically just ends the war because of bad coding. The aggressor has to come back and war dec the alliance you just joined.

You can do this as a player and you are banned from re-joining this corp for 7 days. Doing this as a corp the war will follow your corp when you drop the alliance.

This is your only idea that works. Seems like your don’t participate in this system enough to know how it currently works.


(Peter Yurgin) #240

This is probably the biggest problem with high-sec wars. Because the only counter to them would be to have your own neutral logi ships the enemy doesn’t know about. The suspect timer is good, but you’d have to have a neutral fleet that is there just to go after suspect timers that they did not prepare for. Because the neutral spy character told the fleet what you have and they have formed up with the exact counter ships and numbers to crush your fleet and brought in the logi’s that aren’t war targets that come in late so they are away from you. That is the biggest problem with high-sec wars.


(Arrendis) #241

Well at least one of the people getting called out for being a wardeccer in this thread is a single-player corp that wardec’d a 74-man corp while they were in a 130-person alliance, so I know it happens!


(Grey Solaris) #242

How are so many people so bitter over this? I know this is a forum, and its usually where the bitter gather regardless of the game played, but I’m not understanding all of the rage here. Maybe it’s because I spend most of my time in lowsec and wormholes that I’m not understanding why everyone is so upset.

Is this going to put an end to all of the ganking in high sec?


(Mizhara Del'thul) #243

Nah, ganking will be untouched, never required a wardec to begin with. The reason (some) people are annoyed is because we can see slightly farther than our nose and can tell knee-jerk band-aids with no backing data are generally speaking bad ideas. This is something CCP should have been a bit more patient about, gathered more data about, and then provided a real solution for instead of tightening a tourniquet around the neck and calling it a day.

When everything else CCP has ever done has always proven to be abandoned and ignored in favor of whatever new thing distracts them next (I’m thinking they’ll be teleporting some more bots to Yulai and claim they’re doing something), there’s very real concerns this is where they’ll leave the situation.