Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas


(Nevyn Auscent) #1095

Except it’s not about them being safe. It’s about you putting several walls in front of them saying “if you want to gank in a 2 million isk ship you have to invest all this other effort”.

Why shouldn’t some guy in an npc corp be able to just jump in a destroyer and kill the other venture mining that bumped him or called him names. Why should he have to go and spend hundreds of millions and make a corp leaving all his friends in corp to do so.
These are the important questions.

(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1096

The question for me is why should someone just be able to go gank people without any provocation, and not be vulnerable to a come-back / escalation? Most ganks are just for fun, and the victim did not start it.

And the war dec eligibility = red safety is just one idea how to organize the possibility for retaliation. If it sounds too steep for some (which sounds a little funny to me, tbh, but I take your word for it), fine. You could alternatively handle it by “if someone in your corporation aggresses and kills someone you are wardec eligible for the next month”, and limit safeties in NPC corps only.

My point is that if you start pvp, you should be willing to also take it. Being able to start things and then run into safety in your non-eligible corp is nonsensical. If you don’t want to fight, then just don’t.

(Nevyn Auscent) #1097

In what way are they not vulnerable to come back. You get a kill right. You can gank them all you want in return also. No one is safe from pvp unless they don’t undock (or do market games). So your requirement is already filled, they can be shot.

And why shouldn’t they be able to gank someone without provocation. It is EVE to be able to kill someone because you felt like it.

This just sounds very much like someone ganked you and you don’t like losing a ship randomly when it’s not part of a story or planned fight.

(Black Pedro) #1098

Crime already does this. If commit criminal acts you quickly become free to shoot to everyone via security status and are open to retaliation via kill rights. The latter means no matter what you do, whatever corp you join, you can have your CONCORD deterrent switched off. It is like a permanent personal wardec that follows you so I see no need for something more.

This game is also not about safety. Nowhere is safe on purpose so even without this, you are open to attack by other players whether you are a criminal or not, or whether you are in a Corp or not. Everyone should be prepared for PvP at any time as that is how the game is built. Removing the ability to commit crimes for solo players will just limit content and reduce activity is this game yet again, something this game doesn’t at all need right now.

(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1099

Sec status you can buy these days and kill rights are not a very easy mechanism to use for escalation.

And this is my point. I am not arguing getting rid of the possibility to gank someone. Since I was not explicit enough above, let me put it more directly: I can, I have, and I will gank folks myself. I want to keep on doing that, thank you very much. I am also in a war-dec eligible corporation, as you can easily confirm. This is not about me being afraid to lose ■■■■.

My point is that if you engage in PvP, you should be open to other people not just doing a gank back, but also escalating. I am arguing for less a safe game, not more.

(Black Pedro) #1100

Well, as a basic goal I am all for it. I am not sure though how things can escalate if you make it impossible for a a large class of players to even engage in PvP by locking out their safety settings. I’d rather not see the game create two classes of players - ones that are only prey items because they cannot shoot another player in highsec, and ones who can.

It seems tough from a game design perspective to design a system where players have both the freedom to disengage or avoid fights, and force them and this has been an eternal struggle with this game since the beginning. Given you want people to actually play, not dock up or log out, I think we are stuck with evasion as such a key strategy in everyone’s tool kit and will have to deal with this. You can still bait, or trick or ambush like everywhere else in this game to get a fight.

(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1101

I think you are exaggerating there. Being unable to gank if you are not open to escalation does not mean you are “unable to engage in PvP”. There’s plenty of small-scale PvP available in low sec, against flashy targets, etc, that is accessible with yellow safety.

(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1102

And yes, it is a tough balance and likely there’s no perfect solution.

Personally I feel there’s three big issues with the current opt-in mechanics. One is what I am talking about: ganking is a little too safe, there should be an escalation mechanism of some sort. (My take is that if you gank, you implicitly agree with me that the game should not be safe, so it should also not be safe for you.)

Another is that currently wardec costs only take into account the size of the target - not the attacker. I feel it should be fairly cheap for a small outfit to wardec a much bigger one. Wardec cost should depend on the relative sizes of the involved parties. This would make it possible for new people entering into PvP to create a target-rich environment and take on bigger prey.

A third issue is corp-hopping to dodge decs. This issue was made worse by the fact that you can dodge into a non-wardec eligible player corp, allowing basically anyone to choose on a day-by-day basis if they want to be involved in one of their wars or not. That’s a little too much opt-out.

EDIT: to also say something positive, I think the wardec eligibility thing has forced “blanket wardec alliances” to let go of a lot of “easy mode prey” and look for other opportunities. My hunch is that there has been a spike up in low-sec gate camping since the mechanic change, because that has become an appealing way to find explosions. I like that. It makes the game a little safer for newbies and pure industrials, yes, but I think that’s is a fine exchange for making lowsec a tad more exciting again. (This is hunch from spending a lot of my time in low sec, not data, obvs. So I might be mistaken.)

(Black Pedro) #1103

Ganking isn’t safe at all. You always lose your ship. It’s a safe as anyone is who only flies around in disposable ships - don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose and all. I’ll agree it lacks opportunity for escalation, but no one is safe in this game.

Tying the crime mechanic to a corp mechanic has the same problem with people wanting to add a structure that ends the war - it give too much power to the largest groups. They can dictate who can play the game by locking you out of features or mechanics. I’m fine with the biggest dog calling the shots, but they should have to do something to flex their power, not have safety handed to them just for the fact they have the most people and can win any single fight and turn off the ability of others to attack them. They are the last ones that need free mechanical safety like that.

I don’t know what the answer is, but probably if there is one it lies the other way, with making all players more open to interactions with each other rather than adding more limits and rules. Make everyone more open to interactions and then you can use that freedom to go after the criminal that annoyed you, but as we agree this is easier said that implemented.

(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1104

You keep on repeating that “no one is safe in this game” as some kind of a mantra. Please note that I have not argued that anyone should be completely safe in this game, and also ganking is not completely safe obviously. My problem is the lack of escalation, and I am glad we agree on that.

Like you said, it is a balance, of course. My idea was aimed at encouraging people to be open to interactions - if you want to gank, dive full way in to the pvp pool, not just dip your toes into it. But I can see how that could be seen as a limiting rule, too.

(Commander Kane) #1105

I stopped making suggestions on what CCP needs to do long ago because it really does not help. Everybody will always have a baised opinion. Is it maybe not time just to let it be and see what happens and how EVE turns out.

My content creation days are over. I am just having fun forcing people to loose structures or pay. Good times. Fighting on the forums about the glory days of EVE PVP wont bring it back. The next generation of EVE players are just different… I now just try and produce salt and scam isk out of them. :slight_smile:

(Nevyn Auscent) #1106

Can’t imagine why they seem different when they keep getting targeted by well established vets…
It’s not like they are getting a vastly different game experience to shape them.

(William Markarian) #1107

While I fully agree with the changes, I must note that the mechanics is currently so broken, that it is actually impossible to destroy any structure in high-sec. Any structure owner can exploit bugs in the system to dodge any war dec on them. Unless these bugs are fixed, the whole system is useless.

(Dom Arkaral) #1108

Explain said bugs?

(Black Pedro) #1109

Indeed. It seems to me that exploding structures is about the only thing the the current system is good for.

(William Markarian) #1110

It’s called an ‘inversion bug’. The corp can become the aggressor in the war (instead of the defender) by exploiting this bug. Since the corp is the aggressor, it can end the war before the next timer. And since you need then again 24 hours to make a new war active, you can’t kill the structure. We have seen this exploit now a couple of times. And there is not much you can do against it.

(Nevyn Auscent) #1111

Report it as an exploit then. And watch it get dealt with fast.

(William Markarian) #1112

Already reported. No action from CCP so far.

(Tora Bushido) #1113

When will CCP change it?

(William Markarian) #1114

No idea. They know it’s a bug. They even openly acknowledged it’s a bug. Since the TOS clearly states

“23. You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players.”

this is an exploit, and action should be taken.