open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Hisec wardec change proposals
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:36:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Bish Ounen on 14/04/2009 02:35:52
Edited by: Bish Ounen on 14/04/2009 02:31:52
With all the threads about hisec wardecs, I thought I would drop a few thoughts I've had about the wardec system and some changes that might make it a tad more enjoyable all around.

!!!WARNING!!!

INCOMING LARGE POST! IF YOU ARE A TL;DR KIND OF PERSON, LEAVE NOW AND DON'T RESPOND!!


Here are my ideas:

1) Wardecs have an "Initial" and "Continuing" state. An "Initial" wardec is one wherin your corp or alliance has not wardecced a particular corp or alliance for AT LEAST a one-week period immediately preceding the start date of a requested wardec. All subsequent wardecs are considered "continuing" as long as less than a week has passed since the previous wardec. If more than a week has passed, the "Initial" state is again in force if another wardec is requested.

2) Pricing for "Initial" and "Continuing" wardecs are different, with "Continuing" wardecs being more expensive by a percentage. (actual percentage TBA) With the percentage increasing at the same rate as the "Multiple wardecs" percentage does. This encourages people to NOT continuously wardec one corp until they are dead, but to stick to short-term wardecs.

3) To prevent "corp hopping" no-one may leave a wardecced corp for the full duration of an "Initial" wardec. Basically, If your corp gets wardecced, the "Leave Corporation" and "Disband Corporation" options are DISABLED until that first wardec is over. You can either fight or stay docked, but you cannot run. Once the "Initial" wardec period is over you may choose to stay on with your corp or leave if you think they are going to be wardecced regularly and you do not wish to fight.

EDIT: Several posters have noticed a potential loophole with this system. That is, they could just create alt-corp after alt-corp and perma-dec any given corp, preventing their members from ever leaving that corp. This is a valid point, except that it entails an essential MISREADING of the text. Note the second-last sentence of section 1, and realize that it applies to ALL wardecs from ANY source. In other words, if a corp already has an "initial state" wardec in process, a NEW initial state cannot be issued. Any and all new incoming wardecs issued before the first wardec's "initial" period has passed (plus the standard 24 hour wardec rest period) are AUTOMATICALLY dropped into "continuing" state, thus preventing a state of perma-dec via alts.

4) To prevent "Alliance hopping" a corp MAY NOT join an alliance after an "Initial" wardec has started, but MAY join an alliance once the "Initial" period is over, whether the wardec ends or goes into "continuing" mode.

5) A corp already in the process of joining an alliance is protected from any NEW wardecs during the changeover period, to prevent confusion and other problems.

6) a "Wardec Balance" system will be put in place wherein the "target" corp/alliance may not be more than 50% smaller AND 50% younger or 50% less experienced than the wardeccing corp/alliance. this is to prevent large and/or highly experienced and/or high skill level players from easily picking on very young or very small corporations with very young and inexperienced players.

NOTE: This mechanic is ONE WAY. A very young/inexperienced/small corp or alliance may wardec ANYONE THEY SO CHOOSE. (Far be it from me to get in the way of someone suicidal.) Also note that the balance calculation does NOT include same-account alts.

This mechanic is employed to encourage corps to "fight at their level" and to discourage griefers from targeting new CCP clientele.

7) All other existing wardec rules remain unchanged.

I'll admit option 6 is probably the most controversial, but I think it is important to both increase the EvE subscriber base AND to make Empire wars more fun and challenging.

Thoughts?

*puts on flame resistant suit and awaits the forum response

Gunnanmon
Gallente
PURPLE.
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:40:00 - [2]
 

ibt "moved to ideas and features" thing.

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:42:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Gunnanmon
ibt "moved to ideas and features" thing.


It might be. But I've seen posts that belong there stay here too, so I figured I'd give it a shot in GD first.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:43:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 16/01/2009 19:45:59
Kill point 6 and you might have something. Forcing people to play by your moral and decency rules does not belong in EVE.

EDIT: Those rules should not belong in wars either on second thought. It is supposed to WAR. It isn't pretty or fair and stronger organisations should be able to use it's military power as a tool against weaker entities.

Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:44:00 - [5]
 

1) Wrong Sub-Forum for this post, Theres one called features and idea's for a reason,

2) The changes you propose as far as joining/leaving an alliance, makes it possible for an enemy faction to place war dec on you, and prevent you from recruit any body.

3) "Wardec Balance" is a horrible idea and goes against the idea of the sandbox that EVE is. If you **** off an older player and his corp wardec's your corp, thats the consequence you have to deal with. I know that it is intended so that way the "elite empire war pew pew" corps/allys cant beat up on noobie mining corps, but is still a bad idea imo.

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:45:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Bish Ounen on 16/01/2009 19:45:44
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Kill point 6 and you might have something. Forcing people to play by your moral and decency rules does not belong in EVE.



In you'll notice the last sentence, it's not really about morality and decency, but about keeping paying clientele. Don't want to discourage the newbies until they are hooked, don'tcha know. Wink

Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:46:00 - [7]
 

Far too complex for CCP. They'll either (do the right thing) and ignore it, or completely nerf wardecs into uselessness and turn empire into a big cheerful happy NPC corp lovefest where every cookie-cutter MMO-hopping 14 year old can be as smacktastic as they like, and do everything completely bereft of consequences or interaction.

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:52:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Bish Ounen on 16/01/2009 19:52:48
Originally by: Straight Chillen
1) Wrong Sub-Forum for this post, Theres one called features and idea's for a reason,

2) The changes you propose as far as joining/leaving an alliance, makes it possible for an enemy faction to place war dec on you, and prevent you from recruit any body.

3) "Wardec Balance" is a horrible idea and goes against the idea of the sandbox that EVE is. If you **** off an older player and his corp wardec's your corp, thats the consequence you have to deal with. I know that it is intended so that way the "elite empire war pew pew" corps/allys cant beat up on noobie mining corps, but is still a bad idea imo.


1) See my second post for a response on that.

2) No restrictions on RECRUITING new corps, only on JOINING an alliance during the "Initial" wardec period. Shouldn't interfere with recruiting AT ALL.

3) Yeah, I knew that one would be controversial. But frankly, I see "Big Bad Empire Pew-Pew" corps as a problem IF all they are doing is targeting newbie corps. I want to give the newbies a chance to learn the ropes a bit, while still being able to fight amongst themselves, before having to face the big boys head-on. This gives them a chance to get "hooked" on EVE. Sort of like feeding them small amounts of an addictive drug to get them started BEFORE mainlining the pure stuff.

It might not be workable, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if it sticks.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:57:00 - [9]
 

Point 6 is god awful and does not belong in EVE.

Above changes would have to be implemented alongside further war changes with clear objectives and goals. A bit too easy to just war dec everything you see and get a free week of random killing under your plan. I like random killing, don't get me wrong, but that is for low/null sec space, high sec wars should have a purpose and stuff, I dunno.

Chomin H'ak
Integrated Takeovers
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:07:00 - [10]
 

Getting around point 6 is easy enough.

Make a new corp, only one member. Dec newb corp, and 'recruit' as needed (if at all), rinse, repeat.

Agent Unknown
Caldari
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:11:00 - [11]
 

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

In all seriousness, while griefing is annoying, it's part of EVE. I thought about suggesting something similar and decided against it because the game is not supposed to hold your hand.

Want to avoid wars? Stay in an NPC corp and talk to your "corp" in a private channel. Gee, tough. Rolling Eyes

Berious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:15:00 - [12]
 

A solution looking for a problem imo

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:17:00 - [13]
 

These ideas are about as good as your alliance.

Derus Grobb
Minmatar
Selectus Pravus Lupus
Transmission Lost
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:21:00 - [14]
 

If only there was a place to put ideas and suggestions.

Liz Laser
The New Era
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:34:00 - [15]
 

Anything that tells people they must stay in a corp is foolishness and will never be implemented.

Come join my corp ClownSwarm.

Ok now that you're in, my alt wardecs ClownSwarm.

Because you're in my corp I can shoot you all I want and as CEO I always know where you are. Oh and the tax just went up to 100%.

The day before that wardec expires my OTHER alt wardecs us.

Alternate for eternity.

Yes, people will pay for that gaming experience, uh-huh.

(And ignore me if corp mechanics have changed since I last looked into them).

But basically even if that exploit isn't do-able, you just can't make people stay in a corp. It will never EVER fly. The closest you could come is to let the ex-member continue to be targeted by the war-dec even after leaving. That *might* fly.

Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:37:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Le Skunk on 11/03/2009 21:40:00
Originally by: Bish Ounen

1) Wardecs have an "Initial" and "Continuing" state.



ArrowSounds Fine

Originally by: Bish Ounen

This encourages people to NOT continuously wardec one corp until they are dead, but to stick to short-term wardecs.



ArrowBad. This would devalue the whole point of war deccing someone. Short Term Wardecs are not in themselves a good thing. If you go to war with someone, it should be with the intention of defeating the enemy, righting a wrong, getting compensation etc - which wont happen if the enemy just has to go quiet for a week or so. With no threat of a perma dec - there is no reason to capitulate... or even fight back

Originally by: Bish Ounen

3) To prevent "corp hopping" no-one may leave a wardecced corp for the full duration of an "Initial" wardec.



ArrowGood idea. However, I would circumvent this by wardecing your corp with different alt corps - thus ensuring the war is always in "initial" phase - trapping your members in your corp for ever

Originally by: Bish Ounen

4) To prevent "Alliance hopping" a corp MAY NOT join an alliance after an "Initial" wardec has started, but MAY join an alliance once the "Initial" period is over, whether the wardec ends or goes into "continuing" mode.



Arrow1) Alliance hopping is actualy mainly when a corp DROPS from an alliance to avoid a wardec, not joins an alliance. This would not be affected,

Arrow2)I will stop your corp ever joining any alliance EVER by deccing it multiple times with diferent corps.

Originally by: Bish Ounen

5) A corp already in the process of joining an alliance is protected from any NEW wardecs during the changeover period, to prevent confusion and other problems.



ArrowCouldnt hurt afaics.

Originally by: Bish Ounen

6) a "Wardec Balance" system will be put in place wherein the "target" corp/alliance may not be more than 50% smaller AND 50% younger or 50% less experienced than the wardeccing corp/alliance. this is to prevent large and/or highly experienced and/or high skill level players from easily picking on very young or very small corporations with very young and inexperienced players.



ArrowSo a small, new corp can can flip, insult, bump, steal resources, upset markets for an older corp without fear of a wardec.

No thanks

Also I can just about see some bodges where i could stick two noob alts in my corp and thus tip the balance into making it undecable.


------

Basically, whilst I applaud you for spending time thinking on this issue (and i mean that sincerely) - your proposals are almost as full of flaws as the present system.

This is nothing to be embarrassed about - CCP have a staff of "experts" who cannot fix the issue - instead implementing the farcical "alliance P" nerfs then ignoring all the subsequent abuses (which i will note I was among many to warn them would be the result of their actions)

SKUNK

Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.03.11 21:38:00 - [17]
 

You've left room for several exploits that basically make your changes either (a) useless, or (b) destructive. For an example of (a), see Chomin's comments for how it would be easy to simply bypass the 'weak corp' protection you put in.

For an example of (b) consider that with ideas 3 and 4 in play, a very small group of griefers could ruin the game completely by setting up a rotating series of wardecs against a target corp. For example:
* Griefer corp A issues dec.
* Near the end of the week corp B issues dec
* Corp A lets theirs lapse at the end of the week
* Then corp C issues a dec to bridge the cooldown period before
* Corp A (after a one-week cooldown) jumps back in

This would lock all members of the target corp into the corp forever, and prevent the corp from ever joining an alliance -- all for a pittance because idea 2 is never triggered. This would be accomplished by a series of 1-man alt corps (thus avoiding idea 6), while the real griefer corp wardecs at their leisure, knowing that their targets can't react to defend themselves except by burning their character and making a new one.

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:30:00 - [18]
 

I have added some clarifications to my original post that should mollify the posters that noted a potential loophole in my proposed system.

I am still working on this concept, and will update as I modify the idea.

CCP Applebabe

Posted - 2009.04.14 06:00:00 - [19]
 

Moved to " Features & Ideas Discussion".

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:32:00 - [20]
 

Your idea has some merit. I like the idea of intial and continuing wars. But if you want to prevent players from leaving the corp then it would be far to easy to misuse that.

So I would like an counter to that by dynamically adjusting the bribe, which concord takes to look the other way.

The bribe will double every week and since it doesn't interests concord who bribes them, this increase will apply to all corps and alliances throughout eve. If no wardecs are issued, then the bribe will half every week.

For example: Corp A gets wardecced and corp B pays 10 mil/ week. Corp B continues that war for four weeks, so the bribe for concord will have doubled every week and is at 80 mil now.

Then the war is over and corp a lives in peace for one week, the bribe will be half and is now at 40 mil / week.

Now corp C wardecs corp A and has to pay 40 mil for the first week. Concord doesn't care who bribes them and the price has already gone up, due to the actions of corp B. Next week the bribe will double again. Corp C continues that war for two weeks and the price goes up to 160 mil per week.

Now every possible warring corp would have to pay 160 mil per week and 320 for the next thereafter or give the corp peace for at least two or three weeks.

Very soon it would cost billions to continually wardec the corps and even large alliances with large funds will reach their breaking point eventually.

This ensures that after an extended war will follow an equally extended period of peace.

Since this does affect only the deccing corp, mercs could still issue a wardec every week to a different corp.

My two cents.

Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.14 22:51:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Miraqu
Your idea has some merit. I like the idea of intial and continuing wars. But if you want to prevent players from leaving the corp then it would be far to easy to misuse that.

So I would like an counter to that by dynamically adjusting the bribe, which concord takes to look the other way.

The bribe will double every week and since it doesn't interests concord who bribes them, this increase will apply to all corps and alliances throughout eve. If no wardecs are issued, then the bribe will half every week.

For example: Corp A gets wardecced and corp B pays 10 mil/ week. Corp B continues that war for four weeks, so the bribe for concord will have doubled every week and is at 80 mil now.

Then the war is over and corp a lives in peace for one week, the bribe will be half and is now at 40 mil / week.

Now corp C wardecs corp A and has to pay 40 mil for the first week. Concord doesn't care who bribes them and the price has already gone up, due to the actions of corp B. Next week the bribe will double again. Corp C continues that war for two weeks and the price goes up to 160 mil per week.

Now every possible warring corp would have to pay 160 mil per week and 320 for the next thereafter or give the corp peace for at least two or three weeks.

Very soon it would cost billions to continually wardec the corps and even large alliances with large funds will reach their breaking point eventually.

This ensures that after an extended war will follow an equally extended period of peace.

Since this does affect only the deccing corp, mercs could still issue a wardec every week to a different corp.

My two cents.


Interesting concept. I like it. Sort of the "increased costs per wardec" idea we are using now, but on steroids. It still needs a way to keep people from just jumping ship at the first sign of a wardec though. One of the main issues with wardecs is that A) they are to cheap, and B) they are too easy to escape. I like your idea in that it hits point A. Combine it with my idea and we hit both points.

Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2009.04.14 23:03:00 - [22]
 

so basically you want to keep the current system, but add in a bit so that for the first week its even harder on the defending corp?

no. go away.


 

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