hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them

# Thread: Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included)

1. Originally Posted by Durzel
As a side note I think the idea of numbers parity doesn't work from either side (either saying that 9000 should be factored into ally cost, or that it should be free to add allies up to this number) because, obviously, that 9000 people won't all be combat-orientated people, or even "mains".
The same can be said for the defensive ally dogpile (numbers of course) - this is why its a silly area for discussion period. But if you are going to balance one side on 9000 members (the cost) then you might as well balance the other on the same numbers (ie free escalation to 9000). Otherwise you are designing an implicitly unbalanced (and uncompetitive) game mechanic.

Originally Posted by Durzel
Some people relish it, but highsec is ultimately somewhere that permits transient wars rather than a system whereby one wrong dec could mean you can never practically play casually again.
Well in the current 1.1 system a large alliance can easily dec a whole boatload of targets forever - I guess those targets can never practically play casually again. Why should the attacker in a "wrong dec" be spared that consequence? (particularly as they do have the opportunity to drop the war any time they want.).

2. You make a good point there.

I don't think the numbers system works on either side, question is how (if at all) do you factor in numbers in cost either in allies or originating dec cost?

For example, having 9000 members doesn't necessarily mean you have 9000 rabid PvP nuts ready and waiting to fight. Statistically it probably means you have considerably more than someone with, say, 100 - but without being able to easily quantify that in terms of what it means for costs and allies I don't really know what the solution is. The whole "adding as many allies until you hit the 9000 cap" thing is just two wrongs trying to make a right though /o\

There is also some exposure risk in an entity with 9000 members in deccing anyone much smaller (nimbler), as that 9b hauler killmail attests to.

You can really get into the meat of something like this without really getting very far in solving the problem. You could, for example, devise a system that measures "combat efficiency" either through the number of SP someone has in "combat" skills, together with their K/D ratio, and determine costs based on that. For example, Genos - being a small corp, ought to have a higher cost in deccing someone/being drafted in as an ally than a corp full of 200 useless noobs simply because statistically all of their members are probably above-average in PvP competency.

Quite honestly though there's flaws to be found in all suggestions.

3. Originally Posted by Durzel
Originally Posted by Plutonian
Originally Posted by Durzel
You can't seriously argue that it's an acceptable risk to potentially end up fighting target +/- <rest of eve>
Why not?

Obligatory Real-World Examples:

1.) Average-sized guy starts fight with puny-guy in bar. Looks like he'll mop the floor with him. Oh shit... turns out the 50 bikers in the corner are puny-guy's best friends. Things get interesting.
...Average-sized guy lives the rest of his short life being constantly pummeled with no escape route until the 50 bikers get bored or average-sized guy dies.
Or average-sized guy moves away. Removes himself from the theater of operations. I always heard it was the pinnacle of achievement to force someone to leave the game or start over. As a matter of fact, was that not the ultimate goal of the war declared on Jade's Star Faction? (I'm not white knighting Jade here... just seem to recall that detail... please correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

Originally Posted by Plutonian
2.) Wars in the real-world are over when both sides agree it's over... not some predetermined time limit. It is faulty logic to say a war should be controlled by only a single side. If there is any time limit, it's not a war... it's a sporting event. I'd bet there were many countries in our history who, when they start losing, would love to hunker down and wait out the war timer.
Oh goody, real world examples. It is utterly pointless comparing Eve mechanics to the real world because even if there are things that work the same they may not translate to a fun game to play.
Understood. That's why I prefaced that term with with 'obligatory'. However, they're not 'utterly pointless'. Games are modeled on real-world mechanics, and only diverge from those mechanics for good reason. In the Real World, it can be expected that if I fall off a 100-foot cliff onto sharp rocks that I'll die. It would tend to be the same in a game simply because players must have a frame of reference for the rules of that world.

Realistically when we're talking about a game not many people will suffer being in constant peril all of the time in space that is for everyone else "safe". Some people relish it, but highsec is ultimately somewhere that permits transient wars rather than a system whereby one wrong dec could mean you can never practically play casually again.
I'm on the fence with your point here. You've got me wavering. What you said above does seem a bit harsh to me, even for Eve. But a character who tires of never being safe anywhere could always leave his corporation and join another? Or even an NPC corporation? Is that still an option? If so, would that not represent a way out?

4. Originally Posted by Durzel
For example, having 9000 members doesn't necessarily mean you have 9000 rabid PvP nuts ready and waiting to fight.
The fact CCP has encouraged over time for people to play with multiple alts is not a problem of the war-dec system. If you have 15 alts and all of them are in one corp, it was your own choice. If someone wardecs said corp it is NOT an issue with the wardec system per se. Even if for every 100 members 40 were carebear singular players, it was the decision of carebears to be part of the corp.

So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.

5. Originally Posted by Alain Colcer
So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.
Hi, I'm a member of a 9000 pilot alliance, but nine tenths of them are worthless pubbie grunts.

6. Originally Posted by Xiang Jiao
Originally Posted by Alain Colcer
So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.
Hi, I'm a member of a 9000 pilot alliance, but nine tenths of them are worthless pubbie grunts.
its actually closer to 99% if you listen to the leadership reckoning they have 90 decent standalone combat pilots.

7. Originally Posted by Jade Constantine
Originally Posted by Xiang Jiao
Originally Posted by Alain Colcer
So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.
Hi, I'm a member of a 9000 pilot alliance, but nine tenths of them are worthless pubbie grunts.
its actually closer to 99% if you listen to the leadership reckoning they have 90 decent standalone combat pilots.
i guess that's what they get for recruiting anyone who is willing to pay 10 dollars to have a pixel friend...

(i love the goons... i really do)

8. If 1 vs 5000 costs 500 million ISK then 5000 vs 1 should cost 500 million ISK. It should be trivial for the 5000 to gather up the 500 million ISK but they'll probably be paying more ISK than they destroy against a much smaller target.

I'd also say that if you have anyone offensively wardecced then any wardecs against you cost half (or lower pricing by a tier). It removes some of the ISK-shield potential of groups willing to use the wardec mechanics and gives some more space for hiring mercs to counterattack. It also offers some ISK incentive to target people who at least have some form of combat arm and willingness to fight in high sec.

Consider those both general changes that could help in both the extreme cases as well as the more mundane.

9. When I first read about this issue I supported Jade. The more and more he writes about the whole war dek thing the less I'm inclined to side with him. I don't know what it is about his posts, but each one I read makes me hate him a little bit more.

10. It's a fever that passes quickly

11. Happy to see Jade and the Fractionites are still finding empires to defy!

12. Star Fraction are my favourite alliance with a very obvious typo in their name.

Them and Pandemic Legume.

13. Originally Posted by ry ry
Star Fraction are my favourite alliance with a very obvious typo in their name.
There's no typo. lern2googleanarchistscifiauthors.

14. Originally Posted by Xiang Jiao
Originally Posted by Alain Colcer
So stop bringing the argument of what is really the "fighting capable" number of members in a corp.
Hi, I'm a member of a 9000 pilot alliance, but nine tenths of them are worthless pubbie grunts.
and thats your argument to justify the war-dec fee should be lower? .....

seriously people, as plutionian said, either pick the "fair and balance" or the "brutal and cruel" side of the coin.

And as i've said many times, the actual price of the war-dec should be a mathematic formula that takes into consideration the ammount of people in the aggressor party vs the ammount of people in the victim party (including allies).

Mutual wars should be open to allies, not allowing that is just plain keeping the "pay to grief" goal of the wardec mechanic.

15. Originally Posted by ry ry
Star Fraction are my favourite alliance with a very obvious typo in their name.

Them and Pandemic Legume.
Originally Posted by Sponk
There's no typo. lern2googleanarchistscifiauthors.
Pfft. next you'll be telling me Pandemic Legume isn't a real alliance either.

16. On the upside, 25% discount if you train the ethnic relations skill soon to be diplomatic relations skill to V.

Also, at the moment it's only a 2x skill... not sure what the chaos build will make it.

17. Originally Posted by Durzel
You make a good point there.

I don't think the numbers system works on either side, question is how (if at all) do you factor in numbers in cost either in allies or originating dec cost?

For example, having 9000 members doesn't necessarily mean you have 9000 rabid PvP nuts ready and waiting to fight. Statistically it probably means you have considerably more than someone with, say, 100
Yeah, there's no One True metric to go by. One thing that *could* be measured though is, for lack of a better term, "visibility"

EVE does seem to be moving towards using various statuses and metrics to tweak game play on the fly... take FW for example and LP payouts for the value of ships killed. Things like that seem to indicate a willingness on CCP's part to move mechanics away from static parameters (before this change, a given ship class had a LP payout that never changed) and towards ways to alter How Things Are based on player activity.

Taking that thought into the wardec realm, one metric that could be used is if the defender or offender holds sov. I suggest this because the ability to hold sov is a reasonable watermark for the visibility and perhaps the activity of a entity, and I assert that if you're able to maintain sovereignty somewhere, then you're putting yourself in a class of entity that is more visible and capable than a 200-man empire-based mission running/mining alliance.

So with that, if you're a sov-holding alliance with members filling your coffers with goo and anomaly bounties, and you initiate a dec against a non-sov-holding corp or alliance, then perhaps the defender could or should be able to call for additional support in the form of allies without breaking the bank on CONCORD ally fees.

Cost (paid to concord) of hiring ally was sometimes calculated incorrectly. That has now been fixed

19. So can someone clearly outline what the previous system was, and what they've changed it to?

20. Originally Posted by Daneel Trevize
Cost (paid to concord) of hiring ally was sometimes calculated incorrectly. That has now been fixed
I assumed this was a fix to the bug where occasionally the first ally in a war costs 10T ISK.

(Though I can't find the EVE-O thread I was thinking of where people were talking about it now. There's some discussion of it here, but the thread does gets confused with the whole "forever war" issue, and branches multiple directions...)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•