These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
Author
Raneru
Contemplate
#81 - 2012-03-29 16:06:42 UTC
Regarding the ally system, would it not be better to allow people to take a contract for a set period rather than the duration of a wardec. My thinking behind this is that a whole corp could play with RvB for a set period rather than forever as the war is mutual.

The other thing is, could we have an ally contract that isn't related to a wardec so a merc corp/alliance can formally negotiate a contract for a set period for other things like attacking a target in 0.0, defending a pos, etc?
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#82 - 2012-03-29 16:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
These are good changes overall and a drastic improvement over the mess we have today as evidenced by the tears of the people currently abusing the loopholes in the system. The exact cost formula would be nice to know, but I would advice against including too many variables in it or use it to force your ideal engagements on us. Just implement some form of dimisinshing returns to exclude the worst abuse scenarios from the cost forumula. This would include the cost increase of member counts and the increase caused by multiple aggressive wars. This way you can negate any cost based dec shields and make deccing a large number of small corps very expensive. That should keep things somewhat in check, while providing a loose enough framework as to not limit what we want to do with the system too much.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#83 - 2012-03-29 16:15:17 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
I'm going to re-iterate on how bad this is ..
After this change you'll have 3 large alliances and 4 npc corps because anything else won't be sustainable
way to go to kill small industrial corps and casual players .. looks like I'll be un-subbing and seeing how far Perpetuum has developed.


Yay, apparently CCP just figured they got too many saitisfied customers already and is about time to fukk off them.
gfldex
#84 - 2012-03-29 16:16:16 UTC
Dirk Space wrote:
I appreciate the effort involved in changing a long standing feature of the game but I do not understand why the war dec mechanic even exists.


It's there to force bad corps out of business.

Dirk Space wrote:

If I enjoy mining and industry, why should I be forced to train up combat skills to defend myself, or sit in a station afraid to undock, or even spend my hard earned isk on hiring mercenaries or enlist people into my corp to 'protect' me while I play the game my way?


Nobody an declare war on any NPC corp.

Dirk Space wrote:

Are you going to implement a game mechanic that forces people in 0.0 to mine and manufacture and train the relevant skills?


Yes, it's called wardec without decshield. You are aware of the fact that you can make more ISK mining in 0.0 do you? Margin are much better there as well.

What exactly are you whining about? You can completely opt-out of wardecs by staying in NPC corps or you can go to 0.0 where you don't care about wardecs.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Harimata
Doomheim
#85 - 2012-03-29 16:21:39 UTC
There are a couple issues that I have with the current design of the war dec system. There are some areas which it does reasonably well, and falls short in others.

First and foremost, there is no direct motivation for defender to undock/fight back. The devblog hints that "(or docking for a week)" is part of the design. I (personally) am against this because any mechanic that encourages people to basically not play for a week is bad in the long-term

My proposed solution to this is for the aggressor, in addition to the Concord fees, to place a sizeable sum of ISK into an escrow account that goes to the "winner" of the war. This implies that there will be a way to determine a "winner" of each war, which brings me to my next point

For all wardecs, specify objectives, success/failure criteria and scope. This was hinted at before, but I didn't see much about this in the devblog. Some ideas
- The current standard metric for wars is ISK destroyed. The objective can be to inflict 1b of ISK damage. First side to reach that threshold will "win" the war. This can be extended to ships destroyed, etc. This is essentially "economic warfare"
- One new mechanic could be to destroy a certain strategic asset (eg, POS, Orca, Freighter, etc). This is "strategic warfare"

Now, to make things more interesting, all player-types should have a chance to win a war. The goal of economic warfare is to inflict ISK damage on your enemy. How can a carebear stand a chance vs a dedicated pvp corp to do more ISK damage? Well... why not reward them for doing what they do best? Why can't a corp *mine* or *mission* their way to victory? If they can make 1B ISK while being war decced without losing anything, to me that sounds like a victory. And as a reward for mining/missioning during a wardec, they getim the ISK that the aggressor put up as escrow.

For strategic asset wars, if the defender can successfully defend a POS, that should count for something. This is where the whole merc system can come into play. Lets say the reward for defending a POS is 200m and they can negotiate a merc contract for 150m. The defender and the merc actually have a direct financial incentive to participate in the war

One flaw with the specifics of this is that it is relatively easy to hide across the entire universe to make some ISK in order for the defender to "win" the economic war. How can one fix this? Well, for starters why do war decs have to be universe-wide? Why not limit them to fixed regions/constellations/etc? Or just highsec/lowsec? Or specific systems for strategic objectives

For example, there is a missioning corp that runs level 4s out of one system. A PVP corp war decs them, with the criteria to inflict 1b of economic damage in that one system. They place 500m in escrow. If the missioning corp can sneak in enough missions to make 1b, they will claim the prize AND end the dec early. Of course, the PVP corp will have to make sure that doesn't happen and be forced to actually participate in the war (as opposed to just swinging by once a day to kill something)

So, to summarize this wall of text
- The aggressor has to place a non-trivial amount of ISK into escrow for whoever "wins" the war
- Objectives for war. They can be economic (inflict X ISK damage to win, or for the defender, earn X ISK to win), or strategic (destroy a fixed asset to win, or defend it to win)
- Limit the scope for war to the entire universe/region/constellation/system. Also, options for high-sec/low-sec

This model actually solves a bunch of other problems. My #1 complaint about low-sec is that it is impossible to use small ships due to station guns/gate guns and a full-fledged war dec will also affect high-sec activities. Why not make it really cheap to have low-sec war decs? This will allow use of all ships without GCC in low-sec, while keeping high-sec activities safe

You can also have very interesting new game modes with this. For example, capture the flag in high-sec? That is just a strategic war in a single system, where each team has one fixed asset that they must protect and one that they must attack. All you have to do is have some mechanic for how to "capture" a flag, and bam! CTF in EvE. This can open the door for casual/arena-style PVP in the same vein as RvB


Apologies for the wall of text, but I had a lot to say.

tl;dr
- The aggressor has to place a non-trivial amount of ISK into escrow for whoever "wins" the war
- Objectives for war. They can be economic (inflict X ISK damage to win, or for the defender, earn X ISK to win), or strategic (destroy a fixed asset to win, or defend it to win)
- Limit the scope for war to the entire universe/region/constellation/system. Also, options for high-sec/low-sec.
Sturmwolke
#86 - 2012-03-29 16:22:36 UTC
1) There needs to be a) a minimum amount and b) maximum cap for the wardec fees, irrespective of corp size. The devil's in the details.

2) Ending wars should result in 3 simple outcomes - defender surrender or aggressor give-up/return-home ... or a mutual draw (however remotely). These outcomes should therefore be noted in the war history. For the latter case, simply by not choosing to pay the wardec fees should mean an automatic give-up/return home.

3) When corps are in an active at war, any changes to member count i.e. those leaving or joining should be slapped with a Concord levy ... which increases exponentially (not linearly, mind you).

4) I think neutral RR could be handled similarly as in 3). Anyone trying to neutral rep warring parties will need to bribe Concord to look the other way, per offence. Implement a standard stack nerf to discourage multiple neutral RR through raising the cost exponentially. You'll need a counter that keeps track of the neutral RR violations for each of those corps at war.
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
#87 - 2012-03-29 16:23:55 UTC
Generally very welcome, however I'd like to see this
Quote:
Change the war dec cost formula so that the cost is no longer increased by the number of wars target corp is in. Instead, the cost is modified by the number of players in target corp

replaced with a formula that takes into account both the size of the target AND aggressor corps. Otherwise you can have a large corp with, say, 5000 members, permanently wardec literally hundreds of small crops at relatively little cost.
Athena Momaki
#88 - 2012-03-29 16:26:59 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Nevryn Takis wrote:
I'm going to re-iterate on how bad this is ..
After this change you'll have 3 large alliances and 4 npc corps because anything else won't be sustainable
way to go to kill small industrial corps and casual players .. looks like I'll be un-subbing and seeing how far Perpetuum has developed.


Yay, apparently CCP just figured they got too many satisfied customers already and is about time to fukk off them.


Both you guys are just complaining for the fact of complaining. this is going to be no different then the current system in place now. Exp it will cost more for the aggressor, and the aggressor can not call for back up. only the defender can.

I do agree with other post that there should be a revers price on the aggressor that takes into account of how many members they have over the defender's corp and charge the average of players also.

To add my main is an Indy. I fly Indy. I do have skills for pvp on my Indy also. Do i want to fight? No, but sometimes you have to pull a hard six, and punch the bully in the face. You may get the crap beat out of you, or you may find out that they will leave you alone after they find out your going to fight back.

Also if your quitting the game because of this can i have your stuff, and thank for helping me make more isk with less competition on the market.

and yes this is not  my main.

Derkata
#89 - 2012-03-29 16:28:11 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:

I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours.


If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.

This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec.
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#90 - 2012-03-29 16:31:48 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:

Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.


Hrm... you know, one way for the defender to 'take control' would be to require both the attacker AND defender to sign off on a war ending, otherwise the upkeep fee continues to be deducted from the aggressor's account till the defender agrees to stop, including going into negative isk territory. This would add a real element of economic risk to the aggressor and change the waiting game into something the agressor needs to worry about too.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#91 - 2012-03-29 16:31:52 UTC
Derkata wrote:
Micheal Dietrich wrote:

I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours.


If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.

This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec.


That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec?
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2012-03-29 16:34:31 UTC
Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.

Q: Waiting time for war to become active?
A: Will still be 24 hours for war decs. It will probably also be 24 hours for ally joining, though we would like to shorten it. This might be tricky tech wise though as we must be sure that all server nodes get the update and the safest way to ensure this is to pass downtime.

Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

Q: Mutual wars?
A: Will still be in. Haven't nailed down all changes for this yet, but one thing to note is that there will be no restrictions to leaving/joining a corporation that is (only) in mutual war(s).

Q: Paying mercs?
A: The ally contract will enforce a one time payment up front. Other deals (like for length of war, reimburse losses or per kill) is between the defender and the merc and is not enforced by the system.

Q: War cost modified by allies?
A: No, only the size of the defender corp modifies cost.

Q: Inactive accounts/characters modifying cost?
A: This is one of the things we're looking into. One issue we have to be careful about here is not giving the aggressor to accurate information about the defender (like exact number of active players).

Q: Will item value listed in killmails/war reports change over time based on change in market value?
A: No.

Q: How do you calculate value of blueprints?
A: We don't, they are the exception to what value we could track. We looked into adding this, but it turned out to be too complicated.

Q: Everything on market now?
A: More or less. Basically, everything that exists, is published and has a meta level is on the market now.

Q: Tangible war goal?
A: We definitely want to move the war system into a direction where people are fighting over something. However, it's impossible to create a single war system that would enforce that without introducing lot of rules and restrictions. So we're keeping the 'reason for war' in the hands of the players.

Q: Ally betraying?
A: There is nothing stopping the ally deccing the defender (or vice versa), but we see no reason to create some system rules for how this is treated on the ally side. The most basic version here is hiring mercs that do nothing. We want the merc system to be based on reputation in the end.

Q: Revealing location?
A: As Punkturis has already indicated this will probably not be the case (at least not exact xyz) in the final version.

Q: Defender taking over wars?
A: We've contemplated similar things, but ended up deciding it would complicate the system too much. If the defender is really keen on getting back at the aggressor, he can simply war dec him.

Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities?
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.

I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.

Luka Datitties
Spades Administration
Spades Alliance
#93 - 2012-03-29 16:35:49 UTC
There are many small corps who have a POS in high sec. They are small for standings reasons, so ballooning up will defeat the purpose.

What if you could pay CONCORD 5 million isk per character per day/week/whatever to now allow wars against your corp? Make this only allowed for corps of a certain size or lower. You guys are looking for ISK sinks right? Bill this the same way as SOV.

The other solution may be to allow POS deployment for individuals in NPC corps rather than being launched under the corp banner.

A lot of cottage businesses will go under from griefers with wars that can go on forever. If you pay for surrender other corps will come to the well over and over again in a giant extortion ring.
Derkata
#94 - 2012-03-29 16:36:42 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec?


It would be nice to see the war dec system used to bring wars from low/null into high, meaning if you're fighting someone in null and know they are going to be moving out, high sec would not keep them safe.

But, CCP wants to force PVE players into PVP and then wonders why their game doesn't attract new players Ugh
Harimata
Doomheim
#95 - 2012-03-29 16:37:24 UTC
Harimata wrote:

..snip..


Of course, the prices/ratios/etc will need to be adjusted for risk vs reward vs opportunity. A universe-wide war should cost more and be harder to win than something much more local. It should also be possible to add new objectives as the war continues.

Another idea is to have public "protection" contracts for mercs. A corp should be able to buy "protection" services from another corp that will automatically drag them into war if the first corp is war-decced. Since war results will show in corp histories, losing such a war will make it difficult for bad merc corps to stay in business. The contracts should be public so that others can see who all is protecting a corp before deccing them. (This will also make it interesting if a merc corp is in 10 protection contracts at the same time and someone decides to dec all of them at the same time....)


Dirk Space
Solar Dragons
SOLAR FLEET
#96 - 2012-03-29 16:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Space
gfldex wrote:
You are aware of the fact that you can make more ISK mining in 0.0 do you? Margin are much better there as well.


I don't play this game to maximise my isk/hour ratio, I play to have fun doing activities I enjoy.
gfldex wrote:

What exactly are you whining about? You can completely opt-out of wardecs by staying in NPC corps or you can go to 0.0 where you don't care about wardecs.



I am pretty sure I didn't whine at any point in my post.

The main point of my thread was based around this question:

Quote:

Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?


Nobody in this thread has given (in fact I doubt nobody can give) a valid reason as to why the war dec system sxists, except to grief people.

I am a firm believer in non-consensual pvp, it is the backbone of the game but the war dec system does not promote an environment of non-consensual pvp, all it does it single out the weak and the small who are trying to make their mark on the game.

If non-consensual pvp is what everyone wants, removal of the war dec system would mean that the bullies using war decs to kill industry ships would have to move to low-sec or null-sec, which would mean they would be on an even footing with people that are capable of fighting back.
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#97 - 2012-03-29 16:38:19 UTC
Harimata wrote:

My proposed solution to this is for the aggressor, in addition to the Concord fees, to place a sizeable sum of ISK into an escrow account that goes to the "winner" of the war. This implies that there will be a way to determine a "winner" of each war, which brings me to my next point


I rather like this ^_^
One of the problems with the current system is the agressor generally has very little risk, esp when griefing industry corps. They can end any time they want without penalty and, as others have pointed out, often these corps are alts anyway so they can always go play with their mains if they get bored.

Another possibility would be they have to put a structure up as escrow.. say a POS (total value of modules equal to a certain amount, unable to unanchor modules during wardec, must be in high sec for wardec to be valid in high sec, etc)
Yiole Gionglao
#98 - 2012-03-29 16:40:30 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.

Q: Waiting time for war to become active?
A: Will still be 24 hours for war decs. It will probably also be 24 hours for ally joining, though we would like to shorten it. This might be tricky tech wise though as we must be sure that all server nodes get the update and the safest way to ensure this is to pass downtime.

Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

Q: Mutual wars?
A: Will still be in. Haven't nailed down all changes for this yet, but one thing to note is that there will be no restrictions to leaving/joining a corporation that is (only) in mutual war(s).

Q: Paying mercs?
A: The ally contract will enforce a one time payment up front. Other deals (like for length of war, reimburse losses or per kill) is between the defender and the merc and is not enforced by the system.

Q: War cost modified by allies?
A: No, only the size of the defender corp modifies cost.

Q: Inactive accounts/characters modifying cost?
A: This is one of the things we're looking into. One issue we have to be careful about here is not giving the aggressor to accurate information about the defender (like exact number of active players).

Q: Will item value listed in killmails/war reports change over time based on change in market value?
A: No.

Q: How do you calculate value of blueprints?
A: We don't, they are the exception to what value we could track. We looked into adding this, but it turned out to be too complicated.

Q: Everything on market now?
A: More or less. Basically, everything that exists, is published and has a meta level is on the market now.

Q: Tangible war goal?
A: We definitely want to move the war system into a direction where people are fighting over something. However, it's impossible to create a single war system that would enforce that without introducing lot of rules and restrictions. So we're keeping the 'reason for war' in the hands of the players.

Q: Ally betraying?
A: There is nothing stopping the ally deccing the defender (or vice versa), but we see no reason to create some system rules for how this is treated on the ally side. The most basic version here is hiring mercs that do nothing. We want the merc system to be based on reputation in the end.

Q: Revealing location?
A: As Punkturis has already indicated this will probably not be the case (at least not exact xyz) in the final version.

Q: Defender taking over wars?
A: We've contemplated similar things, but ended up deciding it would complicate the system too much. If the defender is really keen on getting back at the aggressor, he can simply war dec him.

Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities?
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.

I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.



Please, i have a question!

If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation?

Thank you in advance! Smile

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an alpha / And so it's you

Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
#99 - 2012-03-29 16:41:30 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

The problem with this is that a 10 man corp can be decced by an 8,000 member alliance for 25m, but if the 10 man corp wanted to dec the alliance it would cost over 4b isk. There is no symmetry in this -- you really need to factor in the aggressor size into the formula.

Siphaanu
Human Remains Incorporated
#100 - 2012-03-29 16:41:38 UTC
If the aggressing corp can drop out of the war every week by not paying the bill, it's not much of a commitment, is it? Let's say things go sour for the attackers and what seemed some easy ganking turns into something quite opposite. In worst case scenario they'll dock up for 6 days (data might show war decing corps are often alt corps so it won't be that bad for them) and then refuse to pay the bill - war ends. If fecal matter hits the device producing air currents for the defenders, they'll in worst case scenario stay docked up for good. That's an obvious game design error.