open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0017 Empire War Dec Mechanics
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2008.07.10 14:07:00 - [1]
 

Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. Valentijn (CSM Dierdra Vaal) commented that under the current system, the defender has no control over the war and the attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as they keep paying the bills. He also observed that there currently is no determined end goal to the war itself.

Matt (CCP) stated that wardecs are necessary so corporations can attack each other’s logistic chains in Empire, but that there are often wars started without reason, simply to get random victims to gank and grief. The system should be balanced so that the first aspect is not hindered while the second aspect is deterred.

Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. Sean (CSM Darius Johnson) suggested that it might be an option to scale consequences based on the sizes of the warring corporations.

Various CSM members suggested to allow corporations to auction off the war to mercenaries, who would from that point on participate in the war. CCP understands that the current system needs work and thinks that involving mercenaries shows promise. No solid solution has been come up with but the issue is on the agenda

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate

Posted - 2008.07.10 15:13:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Exlegion on 10/07/2008 15:26:21
I especially like the idea of auctioning off war decs to allow mercs' participation without fronting the bill. It will certainly make things interesting in high sec.



Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:17:00 - [3]
 

I do hope "auctioning off wardecs to mercs" means an auction system where mercs can outbid each other, and not that a target corp can actually get rid of their war dec by 'selling' it to a merc.

Because that would be insanely stupid.

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:22:00 - [4]
 

Well, the wording suggests mercs to participate, not get rid of the war.



Hojojitsu
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:29:00 - [5]
 

I agree that wardecs are currently "pay to grief". But EVE shouldn't have any areas that are 100% safe. Even in 1.0 there should be at least some risk.

Caiman Graystock
Caldari
Cornelius Starship and Computer Design
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:38:00 - [6]
 

Definitely support more complexity in the war dec mechanic than the current pay to grief mechanism, as described.

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:44:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Exlegion on 10/07/2008 15:44:47
I think this will create more PVP in high sec, not less. And you will still be allowed to grief. Just be prepared to have your wardecs auctioned off to willing merc participants. I wouldn't expect griefers to like this. But then again it's not like they care on whether their targets are being griefed either. So they really have no moral authority in this case.



Pithecanthropus
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:11:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Pithecanthropus on 10/07/2008 16:13:27
I definitely like the idea of war decs to have an end scenario. Where the entity declaring war has to make a choice as to what situation constitutes a victory for them. Possibly making the total cost of ship losses and mods a strategic goal.

For example...
- corp A declares war on corp B.

- corp A decides a monetary value of loss they would need to obtain thru corp B to declare victory. corp B can pay some of that thru isk transfers, or simply lose their ships which get added into the sum.

- corp A has an X amount of cost per week for war based on (1) how big corp B is, and (2) how much isk loss value they are declaring for victory.

- corp A gains war victory points with every successful war won, and they lose victory points if corp B reaches the isk loss total first OR corp A stops paying for the war. victory points are based on how much isk you are demanding corp B to lose or pay.

... of course I'll leave CCP to work out the kinks.

Chiana Torrou
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:43:00 - [9]
 

This might help to discourage large established corps wardecing new small corps.

Make the cost of declaring war proportionate to the difference in size and age of corp; ie:
Large corp A (150 members)
declares war on
small corp B(15 members)
Corp A's wardec costs are multiplied by 150/15 = 10

Where the corp declaring war has the same number of members or less then no multiplier is applied.

An additional multiplier could be applied to do with the difference in the amount of time the corps have been in existence. ie: Corp A (established for 24 months) declares war on Corp B (established for 5 months) will incur an additional wardec cost of 24/5 = 4.8%

This is a very rough draft and I know this would be complicated by the fact that you could avoid this penalty simply by setting up a new corp every 6 months but it might go some way to protecting small new corps.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries

Posted - 2008.07.10 16:53:00 - [10]
 

I agree that the mechanic needs to be looked at. People who wish to lolgank need to be more restricted to lowsec.

plummet
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:55:00 - [11]
 

after months of work and losing it all don't you lose player base as they quit the game?

Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:57:00 - [12]
 

If you can draft out a series of scenarios that woul be used for war-terms than this will have my full support.

Doc Extropy
Gallente
Cruentus Invicta
The Covenant Alliance
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:58:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Hojojitsu
I agree that wardecs are currently "pay to grief". But EVE shouldn't have any areas that are 100% safe. Even in 1.0 there should be at least some risk.


Interesting thought. I agree with you, mostly because I think that it IS too easy to grief new players and make this game unattractive to them.

Question is: what can CCP do to avoid this bad situation? I have, to be honest, not the slightest idea...

Cassandra Beckinsale
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:09:00 - [14]
 

Do this, you solve anything:

All corps need to have a POS at least as Command Center, otherwise they cannot declare war (but can be war declared). If the COmmand Center get destroyed, the coproration is automatically disbanded and all the players involved cannot join another corporation for 1 month.

Explanation:
The true problem is that all empire war are guerrilia war, where attacker pick up random targets just for fun and threat the weaker when they want just for fun. If they have to defend a POS (that they have also to keep secret), things change and no more grief wars, because POS cannot be logged out and cannot hide FOREVER if odds come.

Kazuma Saruwatari
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:11:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale
Do this, you solve anything:

All corps need to have a POS at least as Command Center, otherwise they cannot declare war (but can be war declared). If the COmmand Center get destroyed, the coproration is automatically disbanded and all the players involved cannot join another corporation for 1 month.

Explanation:
The true problem is that all empire war are guerrilia war, where attacker pick up random targets just for fun and threat the weaker when they want just for fun. If they have to defend a POS (that they have also to keep secret), things change and no more grief wars, because POS cannot be logged out and cannot hide FOREVER if odds come.


What about corps who cannot maintain a POS and/or just meant as holding corps for larger alliances?

Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:13:00 - [16]
 

I sense he was being a bit facetious.

But lets NOT make POS' more of a bottleneck in EVE than they already are.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:13:00 - [17]
 

I like the idea of having a "command center" but I don't think it needs to be a POS. it needs a lower barrier of entry.

Cassandra Beckinsale
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:18:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Cassandra Beckinsale on 10/07/2008 17:20:42
Edited by: Cassandra Beckinsale on 10/07/2008 17:19:26
Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari
Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale
Do this, you solve anything:

All corps need to have a POS at least as Command Center, otherwise they cannot declare war (but can be war declared). If the Command Center get destroyed, the corporation is automatically disbanded and all the players involved cannot join another corporation for 1 month.

Explanation:
The true problem is that all empire war are guerrilia war, where attacker pick up random targets just for fun and threat the weaker when they want just for fun. If they have to defend a POS (that they have also to keep secret), things change and no more grief wars, because POS cannot be logged out and cannot hide FOREVER if odds come.


What about corps who cannot maintain a POS and/or just meant as holding corps for larger alliances?


Command Center tower may have it fuel requirement halved or even 1/3 of the normal price. The point is to give a target to the defender, instead of be vigilant forever (impossible for an industrial corp or research corp).

In this way, griefer can still decalre all the wars they want, but if they cannot defend or maintain concealed theiur command center, they will be ****ed up: no more kill for grief... you will have to declare war if you truly need it.

An alliance can declare up to 5 Command Centers for example, so alliance war will not be a Command Center searching... just some ideas anyway...

Edited: and yes, if command Center is in high sec, it can be only small tower and cannot be armed or very low armed... just because dreads cannot come in high sec.

Hojojitsu
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:26:00 - [19]
 

The problems that exists in the wardec system now are:-

1. Wardecs are used for larger corps to grief smaller corps.

2. The wardec system really goes against the EVE security system that is in place. When you are wardecced 1.0 is not even relatively safe if you're a high-sec industrial corp (for example).

3. Wardecs are endless. War just rages on forever.

These are the specific issues in the wardec system I would like to see the CSM look at.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade

Posted - 2008.07.10 17:26:00 - [20]
 

Very pleased to see this on the agenda. Safety is a tough issue in EVE and one I regularly argue about on the forums when people start talking about forcing people out of NPC corps.

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Eva (CSM Ankhesentapemkah) said that in any MMO, players should be allowed to group and organize in relative safety, while in Eve this is deterred as grouping up makes you a target to attack. There is no safe way for players to get started in small scale groups this way. Sean (CSM Darius Johnson) suggested that it might be an option to scale consequences based on the sizes of the warring corporations.


This to me hits the nail on the head. There should be no guaranteed safety ever in EVE, but there's nothing wrong with some safety whilst still being in a corporation, and plenty wrong with the current system where rich bored experienced players can just permanently wardec and roll over new corps trying to make a start in EVE.

MMOs function best when it's a carrot that gets you into content, not a stick. People should want to be part of corporations and feel they're going to get something useful out of it.

The favourite line trotted out when this issue comes up is that a bunch of new players shouldn't stick together; they should form up with older players. There is much wisdom in this sort of synergy, as I have observed in the Amarr militia with new and old thrown together (even if it flies a little in the face of some of CCP's statements about old vs new). Unfortunately it's still not very feasible.

I for one wouldn't join a corporation unless I knew the people involved, felt I could trust them, and had fleeted or fought with/against them at least once. How do you get NPC-corp members to do that? The most popular form of new startup corp that I know of is a bunch of NPC-corp members that all start around the same time, grow together, and decide to start out on their own. Inevitably quite a few die off after one or two wardecs from griefer corps.

For this reason alone, I applaud the Factional Warfare initiative, because it is throwing new players together with old in a way that never occurred before. However it doesn't address those for whom PvP is not the first goal in EVE - industry, mining, research, and so on; all are vital parts without which PvP is not possible.

For that reason I support the notion that the new startup corps without older player aid ought to get a decent chance to grow whilst not being immune to the harsh realities of EVE. Changing wardecs to have limited scope or goals in some way may well be a good way of doing things.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:32:00 - [21]
 

I wish there was something to support here, but there is no proposal being made. I'm pleased that CCP is aware of a problem I thought them resigned to. I'm pleased with the observations and comments by members of CCP and the CSM, though some of them are vague and, as written, open to a variety of interpretations.

I'm not sure why this is in the Assembly Hall section of the CSM forums. It's more of an announcement as its apparently already on the agenda.

Best regards,
Windjammer

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:34:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale
Do this, you solve anything:

All corps need to have a POS at least as Command Center, otherwise they cannot declare war (but can be war declared). If the COmmand Center get destroyed, the coproration is automatically disbanded and all the players involved cannot join another corporation for 1 month.

Explanation:
The true problem is that all empire war are guerrilia war, where attacker pick up random targets just for fun and threat the weaker when they want just for fun. If they have to defend a POS (that they have also to keep secret), things change and no more grief wars, because POS cannot be logged out and cannot hide FOREVER if odds come.


If implemented it would need refinement, but, WOW! Very interesting. And I can envision indy-type corps rallying up for a fight to end the war. It gives them a well-worth reason to fight other than just to survive another day of grief. I would love it if CCP considered your idea.



Khonn
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:35:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Khonn on 10/07/2008 17:36:21
Originally by: Chiana Torrou
This might help to discourage large established corps wardecing new small corps.

Make the cost of declaring war proportionate to the difference in size and age of corp; ie:
Large corp A (150 members)
declares war on
small corp B(15 members)
Corp A's wardec costs are multiplied by 150/15 = 10


I kinda agree with this type of method of figuring out a war dec cost. Also, why not have some reprecussions for NOT reaching your war "goal"?

So, lets say CCP has a preset list to choose from for your war goal. Each item on the list has a preset time limit on it along with the goal. So only way to end the war is obtain the goal before the time is up, or reach the time limit pre-established on the initial contract.

Put a 3 month or 6 month timer after war is complete where they can't be war dec'd by the exact same corp/alliance.

As far as the reprecussions of not meeting your war goal, impose a 100% fine of the contract price upon a failed war dec.(so if you pay 150mil for the contract, you owe 300mil more on a unsuccessful war dec.) Make the 300mil a "deposit" when contract is signed so it's paid upfront. So if failed, no isk back, if successful, you get the isk back.

Numbers aren't solid numbers, but these are just some suggestions.
Khonn

Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:46:00 - [24]
 

How about this in terms of win or loss - look at war like a business gamble.

Let's assume that we have ways of 'establishing victory'.

With that done - turn war into more of a business. If a war-dec fees were put into a virtual escrow then if the aggressor fails to achieve his goals then why not give a small portion of that wardec fee to the target of the wardec.




Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:48:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 10/07/2008 17:49:08
Originally by: Ki An
I do hope "auctioning off wardecs to mercs" means an auction system where mercs can outbid each other, and not that a target corp can actually get rid of their war dec by 'selling' it to a merc.

Depends on what you're after, though the precise terms would have to be worked out. Plenty of those who grief are just after a fight because they're bored - an industrial corp selling the wardec to a merc in that case gives them exactly what they're after.

By comparison, a wardec used the way it was intended, as corp-corp wars over resources or territory or that sort of important thing, on an industrial corp, well you definitely don't want them getting rid of it.

Perhaps what is needed are classes of wardecs - cheap ones that the wardecee can sell off and so negate the war, and expensive ones where you really mean it and though the other side can auction mercs and so on, they are equally committed.

Whatever is there can still be abused if you have enough money and the only determining factor is money, so I still think the notion of declaring war for a goal and a time rather than just two sides declaring each other targets for a week is important.

For example, a war could have numerous conditions that the declarer can pick from:
Number of combatants killed - rack up enough kills and the war automatically ends.
ISK damage inflicted - you want to make a financial point.
POS destruction - you want that high-sec location.
System clearance - you want them out of that system.

Whichever you pick there should be equally ways for the opposing side to end the war by achieving equivalent objectives - thus encouraging them to step up and do something as well.

Matching unequal corps is a difficult one. A 200-person experienced corp wardeccing a 20-person new corp needs to be discouraged. The cost of the wardec could skew according to total corp SP for example on active players (undocked within the last week etc.).

I'm just throwing ideas out. They're not meant to be definitive answers.

Edit: The above notions of escrow and command centers are quite intriguing too. Corps already have an unassailable headquarters. Perhaps if they are required to have an assailable one to engage in war, that could make things more interesting.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:58:00 - [26]
 

Another random idea - if there is one thing that puts new players off engaging in PvP, it's losing their implants.

So, if you want a cheaper wardec, you can opt to declare it but no podding. That way the new players are encouraged even before the harsher world of Factional Warfare to get out there and fight in a slightly more sanitised way. Podding results in CONCORD and loss of insurance and usual penalties, to make the point stick.

Sure, you can still have wars that involve podding, but they'll cost more. I'm just thinking of ways to get new players into PvP and corps as early as possible without pushing them down that steep learning curve before they're ready.

I think there are loads of options to enable the sort of high-sec slightly sanitised warfare that gets both sides fighting instead of hiding in NPC corps or playing docking games.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:34:00 - [27]
 

here is a system i thought over a few days ago, if you have questions feel free to ask.

fixing wardecs in features and ideas discussion

Beani Kliadi
Caldari
Arekin Piggy Bank
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:37:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Beani Kliadi on 10/07/2008 18:38:56
Just a thought, all corporations have an area of operation (AoO) that they usually all stick to, as obviously corporations band together into solar systems where the corporations HQ and/or Office(s) are resided; this goes for PvP, Industrialist and Mission Running corporations.

So why not have tactical rally points (TRP) in and between these AoO's of the two or more warring corporations. Like boarders where the players engage each other. Using the 'Command Posts' as these TRP for both a point of Defence and a point to Attack from.

(example: Attacking force first has to assemble at they're Command Post 'Team Up and Take Flag'[Must be present at Command Post so that only those at the Command Post can be in the attacking Fleet, others will then have to patrol boarders or defend they're command post(s)] and then they will be able to engage the Defending force's Command Post; upon Occupation of the Defenders Command Post the 'Flag Bearer' must then hold the position for a certain amount of time. Once the time elapses the Command Post changes hands into the Attacking force.

Command Posts could be in deadspace zones.

Also the size of the corporations participating in the war could determine the size of the AoO and the number of TRP's for each side.

Thanks, Beani Kliadi

Fightback
Sardaukar Merc Guild
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:44:00 - [29]
 

As a Merc, I do believe that the current system needs to change. 3 major concerns come to mind:

1. Voting, 48 hours is some times too long for the defending corp to wait. Voting needs to be changed so that when all the shares are accounted for, the vote ends.

2. As far as the Merc bids... I think it would be a good idea... BUT how would mercs find out about a job? Maybe the contract system? All in all... I don't believe this to easy to implement or be useful. A better solution would be a CCP endorsed Mercenary channel, where mercs and contractees can find each other. The only problem with this is mercs finding out other merc jobs and maybe going for the other side and other such back door deals. But I think those can be handled on the player side.

3. Victory Conditions and Command Posts, both great ideas! Major points involved to those who suggested it. BUT... I have questions...

A. Could victory conditions be added upon? For example, I have a contract to do 2 billion isk in damages to Corp A. Corp B informs me that Corp A also has a POS that they want taken down also. Would it be possible to change those victory conditions?

B. Command Posts... fuel requirements... Confused as a combat corp, I don't really have haulers and industry guys... so how would fund this? basically your telling Combat corps that they need to pay MORE to have the ability to declare war. I don't like thinking about that... Mercs are not the most well paid individuals... So either no fuel requirements OR plan C Very Happy

C. I propose a different solution that could be considered fair to all sides. Corp A attacks corp B: Corp A has whatever victory condition. Corp B being a small corp, is unable to match the numbers or firepower of Corp A. Corp B camps Corp A's Headquarters and/or offices. HQ would be worth 2 points, offices 1. For every hour camped Corp B would acquire 1 or 2 points, BUT for every (figuring out what would be fair... 2, 3, 4, or 6 hour intervals?) interval they would lose a point. The objective would be... say... 24 (?) points. To be fair I think that to avoid the obvious counter of having a 0.0 HQ and no offices... the Command Post idea could come into play. Corp A has to declare a Command Post in the same region as Corp B's HQ or office. The Command Post could be found in Corp A's Corp info.

This is a VERY rough idea. I hope to think more on it over the next few days.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:52:00 - [30]
 

thats how i would do it:

The new system:

First we have to distinguish between a cold and a hot war, which differ in the possibility to actually shot each other.

Corp A wardecs Corp B, but unlike in the present system it has to choose at least one reason it is actually fighting for.

The following reasons could be selected:

Money: with a maximum of half the corps income in the previous 30 days and a minimum of 1 mill.
System control: corp a wants corp b out of a certain system
Moon control: corp a wants a pos of corp b removed
Member removal: corp a wants a certain member of corp b expelled.

The war fee should be determined by the numbers of attacking corps and the member numbers of these corps:
1. war declaration 10 mill base fee.
2. war declaration 20 mill. base fee
and so on

if the attacking corp has more members the base fee is multiplied with the according ratio. 3 to 1 for example would result in a 30 mill first war dec.

The following restricitions apply to the waring corps:

Cannot recruit new members.
Cannot form fleets with non corp members, unless the war has been declared to be open.
Leaving the corp takes 7 days (up to discussion)



Corp b's options

declare mutual: Corp A cant retract the war but can also issue the options below.

declare open: both corp members can form fleets with other players

Surrender: different for the individual war reasons, except that the war cannot be retracted anymore
Money : once the amount is paid the war turns into a cold war
System control : war turns cold and corp b members become blinky red to corp a members in the system in question
Moon control : war turns cold and the tower offlines and cannot be onlined until it is relaunched for corp
member removal : war turns cold once member is kicked, which takes place immidiately (only with applies for ths member)
should the member rejoin before the war ends, corp b members become blinky red to corp a members


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only