or~ Why Do We Go To War?
This began as a comment on a post on Jester’s Trek. I wanted to respond to Skewed Perspective and my muse sorta got outta hand… so here I am with a full blown post on War Decs… something I have very little interest in or much to do with… War Decs dunt reach into W-space, and when they do… who cares? it’s -1.0 space... Neg sec.
OK, my response to Ripard began…
My understanding of the reason behind War Dec mechanics was to give players a method to create PvP opportunities in Hisec that were free of CONCORD intervention, but still carried a 'cost'. Instead of losing ships to CONCORD action (cost) you bribe CONCORD directly (cost) to 'look the other way' as 'twere.
As far as the mechanics go... I can't say I have ever thought it worked very well. I am in complete agreement that the new changes are… well... weird. You see, to me EVE is a true ‘Virtual Reality’ and as such I have always based my thinking regarding the mechanics of EVE on “How does that work in Real Life?”
Wars in RL can be based on many factors but are historically almost always based on socioeconomic needs relating to resources needed for Industry and resources to support the populace. IE raw materials such as minerals, oil & coal, arable land for food production and land for settlements and colonies, etc. IE Lebensraum, or literally “Living Space”…
[And if the Germanic reference pisses ya off, too bad, it’s very apropos in our case as aggressive violent conflict between the players is CCPs numba one desired and stated goal. EVE is a PvP game and they want to give us reasons to fight… they wants us fighting each other forever… remember "The Gamesters of Triskelion"? or mebbe "Day of the Dove" is moar apropos if one considers all the forumrage and whining.]
In EVE we have an abundance of raw material resources, IE planets, moons & belts for PI, moon mining and mineral mining… and literally thousands of NPC Stations in which ANYONE can dock as many ships as they want and live in for FREE, forever… and some number of these FREE stations (I am curious now how many) are actually empty or rarely used most of the time.
Wouldn’t’ it be interesting if…
If… as long as pilots remains in NPC corps they are limited in available skills and ship types… in order to access the full range of skills and ships a pilot MUST leave the NPC corp and either create an OMC (One-Man Corp) or create a corp with others or join an existing corp. A pilot returning to an NPC corp retains the skills and ships from his time in player corps, but cannot USE those added skills or ships as long as he is in the NPC corp.
If… you had to pay rent to stay in an NPC Station past downtime? With rates based on single occupancy with 2 frigates, 1 Cruiser, 4 BCs and 3 BSs (for example) in dock. Rent an office and the per ship rates scale down drastically.
If… corps/Alliances were limited in membership size by the number of planets/POSes/stations and the types and amount s of resources available in the system(s) in which they have offices and/or POSes…
Now please understand, I strongly believe the One Man Corp is, and should always be, a viable playstyle. Forcing everyone into multiplayer corps is limiting and I feel and believe EVE should be as open to as many playstyles as possible. The requirements for an OMC and small corps should be easily fulfillable in ANY system in New Eden… the larger the corp the greater the resource need… at some point some corps will get big enough to begin to ‘covet’ their neighbor’s resources…
CCPs balancing of resources would drive corps and Alliances as some systems would be able to support five thousand OMCs or one hundred 50MCs or fifty 100MCs… some would support only one hundred OMCs or ten 10MCs or one 100MC. As New Eden’s populace (we hope) grows new sources (increased or new ABs & IBs, increased or new deposits on planets and moons) will be found in existing systems, same as IRL.
The real biggie though would be this…
The mechanics behind War Decs would no longer be bribes to CONCORD, but a Formal Declaration of War against (Fillintheblank corp) for… (wait for it) SPECIFIED GOALS.
Goals would be Specific systems/planets/moons/POSes(/Stations where applicable) listed as objectives.
War would be prosecuted until:
(1) the Aggressors Specified Goals are achieved;
(2) the Defender surrenders or abandons the listed goals;
(3) the Aggressor quits;
(4) the warring parties agree to a cessation of hostilities by Treaty.
The Formal Declaration of War would suffice to ‘call off’ CONCORD, as that organization is primarily a police force and does not get involved in Politics at this level… and they can’t be bribed either… (that has ALWAYS bothered me TBH).
“OK, how do you ‘take’ a system/planet/moon/station you ask?” … I can think of several ways. But the idea is to base any War mechanic AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE on Real Life. Just ONE idea… “Blockade”.
To Blockade a Station:
The Attackers warp in a fleet of (say) six BS’s that orbit the station. As they are at War with a corp who holds offices in the station, the Attacking force can ‘broadcast’ to the station that it is now under a ‘Blockade’ and pilots in the War on both sides are now unable to dock at this station.
The Defenders can field a fleet (from outside or undocking from station or both) to aggress the blockading ships, while some ships (Blockade Runners) in the Attackers fleet, not engaging the blockading ships, would have some % based chance of docking based on the attack/defense balance of forces or on the outcome of the fight. The Blockade Runners of course can be attacked, but this would take some of the heat off the Defenders so they could aggress the Attackers moar effectively…
If the Defenders drive off or kill the Attackers then all Defenders can dock and can bring in re-enforcements & supplies.
If the Attackers kill or drive off 50% or moar of the Defenders then no Defender ships, aggressing or not, can dock.
OK, so just log off until the Attackers give up, right? Uh no… as long as the Attackers can keep the Station in “Blockaded” status for, let’s say… a minimum of one half of uptime everyday (the longer the better), the station will consider the Defenders as permanently blockaded and they can then be ‘Starved Out’.
When the Defenders reach ‘StarveOut’ (some TBD time period w/o resupply) then the Defenders will be ejected from the station in whatever ship they are in (NOTE: if the pilot(s) are not online, their ship(s) are invulnerable and immediately performs a logoff warpout) … so NO, the Attacker does not get to kill you when you are not online… but the Station WILL boot yer ass if you just hunker down and do nothing.
To avoid StarveOut, the Defenders must get (x amt [based on corp membership] of consumer goods, IE food stuffs) into the station by “Blockade Running”… see possible Defense tactics above. OOC Alts and neuts cannot bring 'food' in and buying 'food' from the market is not alowed... you are under a violent blockade and the NPC's running the station want no part of your silly little war.
If the Defenders can get ships in when the Attackers do not have a blockade fleet up, they are supplied and the 'StarveOut' timer resets/decreases. And the Defender's Allies can bring in supplies and the Attacker's Allies (yes, the attacker can have allies... why not? They can and do IRL, right?) can run blockade duty... Hmmm... just imagine the ramifications/possibilities...
To avoid StarveOut, the Defenders must get (x amt [based on corp membership] of consumer goods, IE food stuffs) into the station by “Blockade Running”… see possible Defense tactics above. OOC Alts and neuts cannot bring 'food' in and buying 'food' from the market is not alowed... you are under a violent blockade and the NPC's running the station want no part of your silly little war.
If the Defenders can get ships in when the Attackers do not have a blockade fleet up, they are supplied and the 'StarveOut' timer resets/decreases. And the Defender's Allies can bring in supplies and the Attacker's Allies (yes, the attacker can have allies... why not? They can and do IRL, right?) can run blockade duty... Hmmm... just imagine the ramifications/possibilities...
This is just one method I can think of to replicate a RL example of a War strategy brought into EVE. My mind is literally bubbling away with historical examples of strategy and tactics and how they could be virtualized… am I the only one who sees this?
One example I am using ATM… I fit my Meal in a way that would get me LOL’ed by most players, care and grieferbear alike… I fit x2 Med 425mm AC IIs’ running Hail and x6 Lrg 650mm AC “Scouts” running Fed Navy PPlasma. Why x2 Med guns on a Maelstrom??? Cause I can’t hit the effin Sleeper Frigs with the Lrg 650s, but I web em and hit em with the Med 425s and they melt like butta.
So you say “Use yer droans for the damn frigs!!” I do, but Sleepers HATE droans so they do get attrited and the 425s plus the droans are FAR moar effective than either alone. It is a very effective tactic against the range of ships in Sleeper sites but it is a very unusual fit and it goes against the accepted norm and the way you are “supposed” to fit your ships in EVE. I dunt care though, it works very, very well for me and that is all I care about.
So you say “Use yer droans for the damn frigs!!” I do, but Sleepers HATE droans so they do get attrited and the 425s plus the droans are FAR moar effective than either alone. It is a very effective tactic against the range of ships in Sleeper sites but it is a very unusual fit and it goes against the accepted norm and the way you are “supposed” to fit your ships in EVE. I dunt care though, it works very, very well for me and that is all I care about.
CCP talks a lot about how EVE is Real… Well, we know they can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? CCP, make EVE Moar Real. Lebensraum… Living Space… Sit down and think through how shit works IRL and base New Eden Mechanics on the logic, illogic and examples of Real Life Mechanics...
Fly Safe and see you in the Sky =/|)=
EDIT: I want to add sumthin I had on my mind, but fergot... The "Goals" based War Dec did not include 'grief' as an acceptable goal because, AFAIK, no RW nation has ever gone to war IRL 'just' to screw with another nation cause it was too noob and 'deserved' it and for 'fun'... =P
EDIT: I want to add sumthin I had on my mind, but fergot... The "Goals" based War Dec did not include 'grief' as an acceptable goal because, AFAIK, no RW nation has ever gone to war IRL 'just' to screw with another nation cause it was too noob and 'deserved' it and for 'fun'... =P
It is an interesting post about a mechanic but surely no solution for anytime soon. It would be a lot of work to implement.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, you are living in W-Space out of a pos as i understand... well maybe thats the point why should consider the following seperatly:
A corporation that is not hunting after sleepers and getting a lot of money through "small" m³ items but through production and other industries... do you have an idea how much m³ there are in one station? We do not talk about a few ten ships or something like that but about a few hundred or more. In addition to that there would be millions or billions of m³ in minerals and other production materials.
Do you think those should be forced to sell off all the stuff? Or get it out with third party contracts?
There is a space were you can lock out your enemey and have it all for you. it's called 0.0. Having such things in high sec would be more than anoying. If you want to hit your highsec target you wardec it and if you are really after it you know there main region or even there highsec poses. Shoot those or just disturb as many ops as you can. but forcing someone in highsec to move billions of m³ to another station is no fun at all. Endless frighter trips and with highsec war against an superior enemy? no fun, no chance.
Maybe that sounds like a carebear and I'm one more often than not. Like in real life there needs to be some sort of "safe habor" you can get to. Luckily most of the gamers of eve don't have trouble with real live wars.
This was not a post about a “fix”, it was a post about the Skewed Perspective the current War Dec mechanic is being based on… and I am in full agreement with Ripard that that Perspective is nonsensical and nonrational.
DeleteI never expect to see my supposition made real in code… it was a talking point, a basis to make my point from… how the War Dec mechanic (and for that matter ALL ‘mechanics’ in EVE) could (and IMHO should) be based on examples of how similar ‘interactions’ work IRL.
And yes I live in W-space and we have a POS of our own… but I have twice as many ships in Hisec station as I do here… why? ‘cause they’re SAFE up there. As for Hisec Industry… did you by chance see any of my posts about the last 2 months I and my corp have just spent in Null, as renters, inna station we dint OWN (and could be kicked out of with a just a mouse click!!), in an Indy corp that produces a massive amount of mods and ships up to and including CAPITOLS of all kinds…? They get kicked out and they lose not only their ships and stuff but EVERYTHING they have built, and are building, for the market… Ships, ore, minerals, mods… BPCs… So uh yes… I DO know full well.
And to answer: “Do you think those should be forced to sell off all the stuff? Or get it out with third party contracts?”
YES. For those who are involved IN the War, Yes. The Attackers do not fire on the station itself (well, not unless they are THAT stoopid…), the ‘Blockade’ action is specific to the Warring Parties ONLY. So I feel you may have misunderstood a little… If, as the Defender, you are driven from your station either directly, by surrender or by Starvation… if you dint get it out before the last man leaves/is booted, YES you lose itl… AND in my War Dec Mechanic the winner gets the spoils... THIS IS WAR.
No OTHER CORPS than the ones involved in the War Dec would be affected. For all other corps, it would be the same as it is now at any station where there are warring parties… free light show or snorefest.
As for Null, null does not need or use War Decs, War Decs are for HISEC (and to a lesser degree Losec). War Decs sidestep/avoid/negate CONCORD. There is no need to avoid CONCORD in the spaces they do not affect or control. War Decs against Null corps/Alliances are almost exclusively to sidestep/avoid/negate CONCORD repercussions for attacks on the Dec’ed Nullsec corps/Alliances IN HISEC.
You say, “…forcing someone in highsec to move billions of m³ to another station is no fun at all. Endless freighter trips and with highsec war against an superior enemy? no fun, no chance.”
Really? So War is supposed to be Fun for the Defender? …since when? Please show me the EULA/Code of Conduct sections wherein being War Dec’ed is supposed to be fun for the Defender?
And lastly… you say, “Like in real life there needs to be some sort of ‘safe habor’…” Uh.. again, ReallY? Where was the ‘safe harbor’ in London during the blitz? Pearl during the Attack? In Dresden during the firebombing? In Berlin? In Nagasaki?? In Hiroshima?? There are NO ‘safe harbors’ in the Real World… there is ONLY the choice of the Defender… to step up and Defend, or cut and run.
The tl;dr…
War is, and should be, Hell.
Hehe, awesome stuff :-)
ReplyDeletehang on there, keep on writing, this is really worth reading. you are now added to my favourites, alongside Jesters and others :-)
and i agree, they talk the talk but can they walk the walk, more and better reality or reality scenarios in Eve.
Wow! That would be absolutely wonderful!
ReplyDeleteI like the way you think, and there are interesting ideas here. Like the "objective based war". I've always been troubled by wars that go on forever without any way to be ended other than the aggressor getting bored or wiping out the enemy. There should be a way to make a peace treaty... and of breaking it.
ReplyDeleteBut my main piece of advice. "Moar" is not a word. The word you are looking for is "more". I know where "moar" comes from, but your writing is pretty good and the frequent appearance of "moar" instead of "more" clashed horribly with your otherwise (mostly) correct writing style. Makes you sound like an idiot which, if one reads the whole post, you're obviously not.
Cheers!
LOL...
DeleteMy style of writing called colloquial... means I write as I speak... and in my posts picking out just 'moar' and ignorin’ 'droans' for drones, and 'spai' for spy and ‘dunt’ for don’t and ‘dint’ for didn’t and 'figger' for figure and 'twere' for as it were and 'tween' for between and 'Ima' for I am AND all the 'g's I drop from –ing endins… lordy lordy!
My Writing ‘style’ is not correct, mostly or utherwise… but this dunt mean I dunt have a brain and know how to use it… =]
Ima Southern Virginia Gentleman and I have a bit of a southern twang in my RL voice, so Tur does here too. I mean no offense and I am very VERY pleased you read my stuff and found it interesting enough to take the time to actually comment…
so few do as my blog is moar chapters of the ‘Story of TurAmarth’ than EVE commentary or editorial so I very rarely get comments… (I mean who comments while reading Moby Dick?)…
And, uh, sorry but my writin style prolly wunt change… =]
I'm big on War Aims. In fact, studying military history, losing track of one's War Aims seems often to be the cause of defeat. That, or having very fuzzy War Aims to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIn that context, I really think CCP needs to stay away from hard-coding War Aims into the game. Players generate enough of those on their own. More importantly, the War Aims of the sides engaged in a conflict can be completely opposite one another. Win vs Survive, etc.
Allies should be able to be brought in, by both sides. There should be some serious thought given to the case of fabulously wealthy corps and alliances making a Forever War on smaller groups. As I stated on Sugar Kyle's blog on the same topic, consider changing the scope of wardecs to be limited to single factions instead of automatically EvE-wide (and allow for the wardeccer to pay to have the war cover more than one faction at a time). Also consider giving corps and alliances standings hits in the space in which they declare war. No one likes having the local gangs shoot up the neighbourhood.
Stuff of that nature. But coding Victory Conditions? No, thank you.
Lot moar to say to this but it's late and I am tired... but I will say...
Delete...No one likes having the local gangs shoot up the neighborhood. ... In EVE, Yes they do. It's kinda the point of the game to a large degree.
We just went toe to toe with Brave in Home on a connecting hole to their C4... and yea, that was the best part of tonight, better than the C5 sites we hammered down by far. As for coding the Victory Conditions... It was a talking point, an idea, something to start the conversation in a certain direction... SO, if you don't like Coding Victory... what do you suggest? =]
We need to put everything on the table.
DeleteThe first question is, do we even want to have wardecs a feature that remains in the game? It does allow for groups that are willing to fight to be able to do so without going to low or null. It also allows for attacks on logistics chains of the null alliances that like to use highsec as a giant Quartermaster's stores.
So, wardecs should remain.
The next question is are wardecs broken? I'm not really sure they are, though the system stretches a LOT at the extremes. Goons deciding to wage a Forever War on a small corp, for instance. But at their heart, are wardecs broken? Most of the anguish I've seen on the various blogs has been surrounding a way to force people to fight. The problem is, there's simply no way to force people to fight if they don't want to.
If the point about wardecs is to allow PvP in highsec, then they're working. They need tweaking, but they are working. The main problem that needs addressing is that, as things currently stand, the attacker has all the positives and the defender has all the negatives. Back when EvE was new, CCP thought that cost-limiting everything, from numbers and sizes of ships to wardecs would work. And it did. But we're now 11 years on and cost limitation is a thing of the past. There are too many entities out there with way too much cash as to make cost limitation a joke. Worse, cost limitation only hampers the small guys, when the entire idea of cost limitation was to prevent the bigger groups from stomping all over the smaller forever.
Once again, Tur, we've talked past each other with regards to the statement you quoted :) My comment was intended to be interpreted in the context of the game, lore and all. In that context, the Empires don't like folks shooting up their space. Makes for bad press and upsets the civilians at breakfast :) This isn't just a nit, either. To me, any game mechanic has to make sense within the context of the game or it ruins the game. If the features in the game have no connection to the underlying lore, then why bother with the lore at all? Just call it Spaceship Battle! and be done with it. Nice and generic and boring as hell. (CONTD)
(CONTD)
DeleteTo my mind, the main problem that needs to be fixed with wardecs is the costs involved. I don't think only isk is the way to go. As I posted elsewhere, I think having the corp and everyone in it take a standing hit with the faction where the war is occurring. Even better, stop making wardecs EvE-wide. Force the aggressor to chose which faction they're going to have the war operating in. Allow them to chose multiple factions, if they want. Have the cost to declare war be based on the number of factions the war covers plus a surcharge per character in the aggressing corp/alliance. Call it a processing fee for Concord to register legal combatants. The defenders don't pay, of course, because, well, they didn't initiate. Nor would they take a standings hit; they're only defending themselves.
For more nuance, there could even be additional layers of cost allowing the agressor to include different types of structures. Want to attack that corps' POS? Pay more. POCO? Pay more, too. Not for each structure, just each type you want to attack.
Want to bring in allies? Go ahead. Costs either party nothing, but your allies will have to pay the participation surcharge, including structures. That also helps to set a benchmark for what constitutes a reasonable fee for mercs :) And as for the argument it will drive up prices, well, no one is forcing people to pay mercs what the mercs are asking. Besides, I would be hugely surprised if almost all the mercs out there didn't have at least one non-corp alt in highsec or null whose only purpose is to generate isk :)
To wander back to costs I don't think isk cost should escalate, but should remain fixed week to week. Sanding hits would also remain fixed, but would be applied week to week same as isk. Also, remove the mutual wardec mechanic. It serves no purpose. If the two sides want to share costs, let them do that themselves, either through direct isk transfer or by alternating wardecs.
And, again, sorry for the late reply. I keep forgetting which posts I've commented on and which ones I haven't :)