High Sec war system

[Gix_Firebrand]

@Syzygium

will always use the wardec system to punch down for their own gain.

Is it punching down tho? There are things they can do to fight back if they choose LOL.

@Syzygium

because I sincerely do not see what good does it do for the game?

This is a PvP based game my boy. This is the entire point.

@Syzygium

Just go look at the ingame “war page” and see all these “glorious battles” - there is hardly killed anything at all, its just a feeding machine for the wardeccers.

There used to be a lot more meaningful ship destruction. Then people cried and got war decs nerfed

[Syzygium]

@Io_Koval

It makes achievements meaningful for the people who are able to secure their structures.

I don’t know where this idea of “put up a structure, and be left alone” become the “normal idea”. It is basically a billion+ ISK unwarpable ship you leave undocked AFK in space 24 hours a day. You just don’t do that normally with ships in any security class of space, why would that suddenly be OK if it was called a “citadel” instead of a “ship”?

I don’t know why you keep talking about structures, as I have already said that my statement was not aimed at the current ruleset of binding wardecs to stations, but the general use of the wardec system. It was a curbstomp system serving the attackers while frustrating the defenders when there were no structures involved and will probably stay one no matter which criteria you apply to it. And no, I don’t have a solution for it.

@Io_Koval

If the playerbase was capable of doing grindy boring POS-bashes then, they’re capable of easier citadel bashes now.

I don’t ever doubted that. But as said, I didn’t even talk about structures.

@Io_Koval

Fine, don’t do social interaction. In that case, you’re going to have to accept the consequences of such self-imposed boundaries. Boundaries that others don’t have because they work hard to figure out a way to secure the structure. So, don’t AFK an unwarpable billion ISK+ ship-equivalent in space 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Don’t AFK an actual warp-capable billion ISK+ ship in space 24 hours a day 7 days a week anyway. In both cases its bound to attract attention.

Did I mention that I didn’t even talk about structures?

@Io_Koval

I get the sense you’re up for debating whether the above ought to be the case. I don’t think you’re going to get much sympathy, given that CCP made the Siege Green patch with the explicit goal to prevent structure spam, and making structures in highsec easier to have for every Lone Joe goes against this design goal.

Surprise information: I don’t care for structures in HighSec space. If it was up to me, you’d still need a moon to anchor one, so there would be some potential for conflict over the best spots and absolutely no problem with “structure spam”.

My main concern is the question if the current Wardec System is really the best possible solution for the game. I agree that there should be an option for Corporate- and Alliance-Level engagements in HighSec, so I don’t want to “remove wardecs” or something - but I am not convinced that a) binding it to stations and b) having it so one-sided in favor of the aggressor is the best way to do it.

[Io_Koval]

@Syzygium

But as said, I didn’t even talk about structures.

Then what is this complaint:

@Syzygium

the best outcome for the attacker is a stupid structure grind at best.

Forgive me for focusing too deeply on that aspect. I’ll move on.

Even if you got rid of the high sec rules for WarDecs, and replaced it with something magically CONCORD-sanctioned: of course it’s still going to be used by players to “punch down”.

It’s no secret that almost all PvP in Eve Online is done because the attacker believes they have a superior force that can beat up the other, smaller, weaker guy. Whether tactically, for one engagement, or over the course of a war campaign. Whether that is a big group attacking a smaller one, or a little guy who believes they can repeatedly pick off stragglers from a big group, no one is incentivized to be suicidal punching up repeatedly. The one exception would be “because its fun” – something not really valued at scale in the playerbase when it involves meaningfully losing expensive stuff repeatedly.

That naturally lends itself to “punching down” across all security class space, and is inherent to the feudal power structure of Eve Online. At the upper end – where “sharks” can’t get any bigger/powerful – you get a cartel-ization of violence: hence the “blue donut” in nullsec. The Cartel at the upper end agrees not to attack each other, and then it’s a pecking order all the way down.

This is regardless of Wardecs specifically, which is a just a formal mechanism for making this pecking-order power explicit in High Sec. Otherwise, it’s implicit everywhere else.

Is this power structure a good thing for the game? Well, Eve has lived with this for going on 20 years, with complaints about PvP since forever. It would take “CCP please make changes to erect artificial barriers to PvP” to break this “punching down pecking order” power structure, and I doubt the playerbase is receptive to that.

[Syzygium]

@Io_Koval

Then what is this complaint:

That was just meant as statement that I think even for the “winning side” its a rather unsatisfying experience. I can imagine more exciting ways of PvP than watching a bunch of Leshaks spool up on an abandoned citadel. It sounds pretty boring to me and I would like to see a better system where actual combat is rewarded for both sides. Unfortunately I don’t have an idea yet how to achieve that.

@Io_Koval

Even if you got rid of the high sec rules for WarDecs, and replaced it with something magically CONCORD-sanctioned: of course it’s still going to be used by players to “punch down”.

It’s no secret that almost all PvP in Eve Online is done because the attacker believes they have a superior force that can beat up the other, smaller, weaker guy. Whether tactically, for one engagement, or over the course of a war campaign. Whether that is a big group attacking a smaller one, or a little guy who believes they can repeatedly pick off stragglers from a big group, no one is incentivized to be suicidal punching up repeatedly. The one exception would be “because its fun” – something not really valued at scale in the playerbase when it involves meaningfully losing expensive stuff repeatedly.

That naturally lends itself to “punching down” across all security class space, and is inherent to the feudal power structure of Eve Online. At the upper end – where “sharks” can’t get any bigger/powerful – you get a cartel-ization of violence: hence the “blue donut” in nullsec. The Cartel at the upper end agrees not to attack each other, and then it’s a pecking order all the way down.

I comepletely agree, it is, always was and probably always will be the natural order of things in an open sandbox combat game. Players will always try to minimize losses and maximize gains. We could discuss if the developers should step in at some point if the cartel-structures at the top become that hardened and the mechanics that one-sided, that there is barely a chance to break them up ever, but I think that should be an own topic. Like in the ganking discussion, I don’t believe in the “untouchable sandbox” (that had never existed in the first place, the devs always made adjustments to influence the development of things in their game).

@Io_Koval

It would take “CCP please make changes to erect artificial barriers to PvP” to break this “punching down pecking order” power structure, and I doubt the playerbase is receptive to that.

I don’t think it needs to be broken up completely, but there should be a progression curve and balancing mechanics depending on the progress you have made in the game and the region you decide to live in, to limit frustration for the players (frustration of whatever source is imho the main reason why people leave games).
HighSec is the starting place for new players and groups and in my opinion some limitations should apply for powerful groups to enforce their power on weaker ones here. I am not so sure that the playerbase wouldn’t be receiptive for that, because I have heard many many complaints about the current wardec system and barely anyone seems to be truly satisfied with it. However, I have yet to see some good ideas for improvement.

[Io_Koval]

@Syzygium

HighSec is the starting place for new players and groups and in my opinion some limitations should apply for powerful groups to enforce their power on weaker ones here.

It is also the end-game zone for a lot of players, so applying limitations because it just-so-happens to contain the Rookie systems seems completely arbitrarily overbearing.

They should just designate Rookie and Career systems as Ultra-High-Sec and now we can treat those as the “starting place for new players and groups” – because certain gameplay like scamming and ganking gets you a ban there already, today.

It should be easy to then say “High Sec, like any other sec, is not the place where newbies start, and is also a place where many people live as their end-game goal” and we can avoid deceiving players into thinking High Sec is exempt from the sandbox.

[Syzygium]

@Io_Koval

It is also the end-game zone for a lot of players, so applying limitations because it just-so-happens to contain the Rookie systems seems completely arbitrarily overbearing.

Limitations are already in effect and intentional from the beginning of the game. It would simply be an adaptation of existing rules, which is nothing new, has always happened over the course of the game and is in no way even remotely game-breaking.

@Io_Koval

They should just designate Rookie and Career systems as Ultra-High-Sec and now we can treat those as the “starting place for new players and groups” – because certain gameplay like scamming and ganking gets you a ban there already, today.

It should be easy to then say “High Sec, like any other sec, is not the place where newbies start, and is also a place where many people live as their end-game goal”…

I agree, I just think the Rookie- and Career-Systems are too hard to distuinguish from the other highsec systems which leads to confusion among the newbs. I would really make it one rather small starting region per empire (like a dozen systems) with only the basic functionalities for training: only the smallest sigs/anos, no icebelts, only career and L1 agents, maybe one L1-epic arc per empire, no structure anchoring etc. That they could call “HighSec” and no non-consensual PVP would be allowed there. You get a clear warning if you leave it, like currently if you enter LowSec or WHs for the first time.

The whole rest of the current HighSec would be “MedSec” and it would be clear to everyone that he can be engaged there under certain circumstances. But then I would rather prefer the old wardec system where everyone can wardec anyone else, no structures involved.

@Io_Koval

…and we can avoid deceiving players into thinking High Sec is exempt from the sandbox.

I don’t like this “sandbox” mantra at all. EVE never was a true “sandbox”, it was always a moderated playground where the devs watched, applied rules and changed things as they think it would benefit the game at all. For sure the interventions were not always the most clever ones, but still, the term “sandbox” is as deceiving as the term “HighSec”. It leads to false assumptions and is often only used to counter opinions without good arguments.

[Io_Koval]

@Syzygium

I don’t like this “sandbox” mantra at all. EVE never was a true “sandbox”, it was always a moderated playground where the devs watched, applied rules and changed things as they think it would benefit the game at all. For sure the interventions were not always the most clever ones, but still, the term “sandbox” is as deceiving as the term “HighSec”. It leads to false assumptions and is often only used to counter opinions without good arguments.

…OK? I can rewrite without that word if it makes you happy.

Eve has always been about the #1 freedom: “Players don’t give a damn what the devs intend for gameplay, players are going to make-do with the mechanics to do whatever the heck they want in the universe, including to each other” and it applies equally across the security class of the system.

What little “rules”/“moderation” CCP has done on the universe, has mainly been to declare certain uses of unintentional and poorly-coded mechanics as exploits, but not declare “this mechanic + player intention is an exploit, but the same mechanic but ‘good’ intention is not”. Things are either exploits, or not. So I’m already disagreeing with your characterization of Eve by objectively looking at their list of known and declared exploits.

That’s the level that players decided to say “I want power, and I’m going to use game mechanics to exert that power over others” and establish a punch-down pecking order. CCP didn’t say “this is how the mechanics should be used” just “here they are, have at 'em”.

It doesn’t matter if the actual mechanics are Wardecs of today, Wardecs of yesterday, or mysterious-good-idea-of-tomorrow, the fact is: powerful players of today will figure out how to take the game mechanics – dev intentions be damned – and exert their own agenda. Players often have the agenda “exert my influence over others” so any reasonable player should be prepared to fend that off from others.

It seems a reasonable opinion to think wardecs suck as a mechanic. It seems a reasonable opinion to dislike and fight against against the established “punch-down” player culture. It seems compeltely unreasonable an opinion to think “I dislike the ‘punch-down’ player culture, and rather than use the mechanics equally available to me to fight that culture, I wish CCP would invent mechanics that enforce their intended use of mechanics – and only theirs upon the playerbase and coincidentally get rid of this culture I dislike”. Because it defeats the whole #1 point of freedom. It is a fundamental de-volution from the philosophy and actual manifested playing of the game of today: survival of the fittest.

So there you go. An argument – hopefully a good one – without using the taboo word.

[Keginu_Nelir_Shimaya]

Ok. EVE is a PVP game.

[Syzygium]

@Io_Koval

Eve has always been about the #1 freedom: “Players don’t give a damn what the devs intend for gameplay, players are going to make-do with the mechanics to do whatever the heck they want in the universe, including to each other” and it applies equally across the security class of the system.

Hmm. No. CCP changed mechanics several times because they simply didn’t like what the players did with them. It was never a “freedom”, it was always a limited opportunity while the devs took their time to evaluate the situation, come to a conclusion and finally implemented a change. And it has nothing to do with exploits.

@Io_Koval

What little “rules”/“moderation” CCP has done on the universe, has mainly been to declare certain uses of unintentional and poorly-coded mechanics as exploits, but not declare “this mechanic + player intention is an exploit, but the same mechanic but ‘good’ intention is not”. Things are either exploits, or not. So I’m already disagreeing with your characterization of Eve by objectively looking at their list of known and declared exploits.

In that case you either have missed dozens of major mechanics changes over the years or are intentionally ignoring them.

@Io_Koval

That’s the level that players decided to say “I want power, and I’m going to use game mechanics to exert that power over others” and establish a punch-down pecking order. CCP didn’t say “this is how the mechanics should be used” just “here they are, have at 'em”.

They communicate trough patchnotes from time to time. Sometimes quite obvious. See the recent changes to ganking.

@Io_Koval

It doesn’t matter if the actual mechanics are Wardecs of today, Wardecs of yesterday, or mysterious-good-idea-of-tomorrow, the fact is: powerful players of today will figure out how to take the game mechanics – dev intentions be damned – and exert their own agenda. Players often have the agenda “exert my influence over others” so any reasonable player should be prepared to fend that off from others.

And that only goes so far. If players take it too far, its getting changed. Your unlimited “freedom” is either an illusion or an intentional false claim.

@Io_Koval

It seems a reasonable opinion to think wardecs suck as a mechanic. It seems a reasonable opinion to dislike and fight against against the established “punch-down” player culture. It seems compeltely unreasonable an opinion to think “I dislike the ‘punch-down’ player culture, and rather than use the mechanics equally available to me to fight that culture, I wish CCP would invent mechanics that enforce their intended use of mechanics – and only theirs upon the playerbase and coincidentally get rid of this culture I dislike”. Because it defeats the whole #1 point of freedom. It is a fundamental de-volution from the philosophy and actual manifested playing of the game of today: survival of the fittest.

CCP can’t change the player culture and I never said they should try. What they can do is try to limit the effects of that culture to a degree they see fit to lower the amount of frustration of those at the receiving end of the punching.
To be honest, all this pathetical “freedom philosophy” fundamentalism is as old as is it wrong. I have heard it in the ganking-related topics all the time and the amount of doomcalling was so ridiculous, it was even funny. And despite all the fearmongering, the changes came and they are good as they are.
There is only as much freedom as the game developers are willing to grant.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Syzygium

What they can do is try to limit the effects of that culture to a degree they see fit to lower the amount of frustration of those at the receiving end of the punching.

In relation to wars, they’ve already done that; and got it wrong from an engaging play perspective. They got it right from a limits on punching down perspective, but that’s just moved the goal posts to where the complaints start.

[Gix_Firebrand]

@Syzygium

My main concern is the question if the current Wardec System is really the best possible solution for the game.

Its not. We should return to the old system

@Syzygium

And that only goes so far. If players take it too far, its getting changed. Your unlimited “freedom” is either an illusion or an intentional false claim.

Actually its when players like you cry

[God_Emperor_Kane]

We all know the main reason (or one of many) for wardec groups becoming that big were we can form 100-200 and more fleets of ships is because it is so expensive.

The reason why I support the old system with much cheaper wardec fees:

Reduce it to 10mil a war
Limit the amount of wars that can be declared
Allow any corp to be wardecced

Still force the wardeccer to have a War HQ.

This will actually allow the 3-5 man wardec groups to thrive again and like the past cause more fights between these groups like it use to. Back in the day we would laugh as small wardec corps would loose to indy players in kitchen sink fleets. And 3-5 people are not going to take down a properly fitted and defended player structure either. Imagine indy corp being able to defend themselves again like they use to.

Even the mercenary field will become cheaper as there would be more competition. Right now we are paid sums of like 30bill to destroy a fortizar of another wardeccing group knowing that they will not even try to defend against us. Getting paid 20bill to defend a timer where senergy of steel just noped and moonwalked away from the timer with 70ships when our paladin/guardian fleet landed.

If we go back to this model of wardecs again I would love to go back and solo wardecs again.

[Io_Koval]

@Syzygium

Hmm. No.

I disagree with just about everything you’ve said.

[Githany_Red]

What about a structured corp development path from ccp.

So people can see what they need to do and at certain stages things unlock for them in the progression of building a strong corp.

So 1st you start a corp maybe pick a category for the type of corp, then at say 5 members you get a boost when mining together or do activities together , then you keep building corp to unlock things like structures, all activities would add to the corp achievements, a bit like the new player thing what ever it’s called but for operations.

The progress informs you how to setup structures and ways to defend them.

Now solo players with alts should not be penalised but it will be made clear to them what could happen.

Wars need fixing but there should be a reward for defending at war time, so people try at save their stuff, rather than just jump corp.

[Io_Koval]

@Githany_Red

What about a structured corp development path from ccp.

And what about people that don’t want to follow CCP’s rails?

Do they have to compete at a disadvantage now just because their dream corp is different?

[Githany_Red]

@Io_Koval

Do they have to compete at a disadvantage now just because their dream corp is different?

No the requirements would be a guide only, to help survive the pit falls, in the defence part obviously the solo player will be at a disadvantage because it’s an mmo and groups always do better

Many of the structures already compete at a disadvantage because their dream corp is a pipe dream in reality

[Syzygium]

@Io_Koval

I disagree with just about everything you’ve said.

Thats fine. But thanks for sharing your thoughts anyway.

@God_Emperor_Kane

…because it is so expensive.

@God_Emperor_Kane

…when our paladin/guardian fleet landed.

Can you elaborate how wardec fees are “too expensive” if the guys doing them have marauder-fleets at their disposal? Do you mean the 100m ISK/week fee? Because I have trouble to understand how this is “expensive”, its basically nothing compared to the ISK the wardeccing alliances and corps have available.

[God_Emperor_Kane]

We average 40-60 bill a month on wars.

90% of them are content wars for the members in between red timers and ops. If we did not members would leave and go back to null, low or just stop playing.

Yes, we also do not fly cheap. But 60bill a month adds up. Not to mention all the other cost.

[Syzygium]

@God_Emperor_Kane

We average 40-60 bill a month on wars.

Maybe I was not clear enough with my question. My apologies, english is not my origin language.

My question was: Where do your numbers come from? War declaration fee is 100m/week per war, which is insanely cheap. How do you come to several billions a month?

[God_Emperor_Kane]

Just to provide members with enough content, we are averaging below or just above 500 wars a month. Sometime it will drop to maybe 200 or 300 depending on the time of the year. This includes renewing weekly wars.

Unlike the past when watchlist existed you never know if a target is online or not. So you mass wardec to force some kind of encounter. This is what the changes resulted in.

Because of removed watchlist, only allow wardecs on those that have structures and 100mil. Suddenly your pool becomes so little of the hundreds of wars or renewals we have only 20 might be actual important.