These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2012-03-29 17:29:42 UTC
Nekopyat wrote:

Well, that is kinda what CCP is going for. They like the blackmail mechanic and usually just say that you should hire a merc corp (because apparently casual indy players are rolling in ISK... *looks sadly at wallet*) or 'go out and fight'.


"Casual indy players" in their safe high-sec don't appear to have any means of losing ISK. So why don't you have lots?
If you aren't losing ISK but aren't making much either - maybe you should look at what you are trying to achieve?
gfldex
#142 - 2012-03-29 17:30:19 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
"If you are engaged in a war that you declared, you cannot join an alliance until that war is finished."

This is a good thing, because it will eliminate one of the possible loopholes. However, I also suggest that if the alliance itself has a declared (outbound) war that it is not allowed to take on new corporations until the war is over.


I don't because it's very easy to get around. The deced corp will start a new corp, join the alliance and move all members over.

Scrapyard Bob wrote:

"Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends."

This is problematic. It means that a mercenary corporation could find itself drawn into a very long-term contract with now way to force the ally who hired them to continue paying each week.


I like that. Why should a corp be allowed to drive another corp out of business while a merc corp can just back away from the war? If you are the CEO of a merc corp you better know what you are doing or your members will look for a better CEO elsewhere.

Players compete about resources, corps compete about players, alliances compete about corps. (That's one of the reasons why moon goo is just wrong.)

There is a very simple goal behind the proposed war-system that I'm not going to discuss in public. If you want to know you can drop me a mail. Ohh, and you can stop linking halve my posts (slight exaggeration ofc), I know now what you like. And it's getting a little creepy actually. :)

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#143 - 2012-03-29 17:31:38 UTC
Nekopyat wrote:

The current wardec system pretty much stops me from doing POS stuff, and my light schedule keeps me out of 'real' corps which generally require much more of a time commitment then many casual players can handle.




This is also a misconception. There are quite a few larger corporations in high sec, including alliances, that are not only understanding and flexible with pilots outside affairs, but they also sport a wider range of pilots including solo'rs and pvp'rs.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#144 - 2012-03-29 17:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Besbin wrote:
Cosmetic suggestion:

Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup.

It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report".


I like this idea <3

I wish I came up with it myselfOops



This is true to some degree.

I still have new guys go looking in their mail "Where's my killmail?? I can't find it!"

And i have to say...

Go into your Character Sheet.
Go to your Kill Logs
Go look up Kills.

Pirate

It's a misnomer based on the good old days (sigh). But it would be nice to not have to turn to these people and be like. "Urm, it's not really a kill /mail/ anymore".

Alternately, spice it up a little for us and drop some fun stuff on the Kill "Report" - such as if it was done in high sec as a gank have a CONCORD Criminal Sticker on the top left >CRIMINAL REPORT< and then some stuff for us to have fun with! I don't really expect this. :)

Where I am.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#145 - 2012-03-29 17:33:49 UTC
Alastar Frost wrote:
One of the concerns brought up at fanfest was: How does this system make the agressor commited to the war?

This is a big question. If you have the isk and an alt corp, you can just prolong the war without even fighting. but you can dock some of your people in the area where the defender has his base and pose a constand threat (like afk cloackers do in nullsec with the threat of having a cyno and bringing in a huge force).

This is a problem if you have pvpers and miners which you can not really protect 24/7. This can hurt a PvE or industry corp a lot.(...).


Off-topic History snippet: that strategy was called "Fleet in harbor" and is what eventually gave birth to the juggernaut/battleship class; a ship so powerful that its mere existence was a threat to enemy sail.

That strategy and its legacy ended up in Pearl Harbor, Tarento and the strait of Malaya.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#146 - 2012-03-29 17:39:34 UTC
How does this prevent corp-hopping to evade wars?
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#147 - 2012-03-29 17:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nekopyat
Axl Borlara wrote:
[quote=Nekopyat]

"Casual indy players" in their safe high-sec don't appear to have any means of losing ISK. So why don't you have lots?
If you aren't losing ISK but aren't making much either - maybe you should look at what you are trying to achieve?


Achieve? I am playing a game.

As for loosing ISK, there are still plenty of ways to loose it in high sec. We can start with wardecs as they currently are (a year or so ago lost a tower and frighter to that, still have not saved up enough to replace it), there are suicide ganks, there are NPCs (yes yes, we all know uber mission runners never loose a ship, but I don't play much so I suck and make mistakes), there is also planning for the future (sometimes badly, I have a whole hanger full of near worthless BPOs), etc.

And, of course, I do venture into low sec now and then and have lost ships that way. ME slots are kinda rare in high sec.
Derkata
#148 - 2012-03-29 17:41:07 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
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?



Derkata - There is a way for you to declare 'war' on a merc corp, which is by hiring another merc corp to go after them. True that this wouldn't force them to mine, but then a war of the miners sounds like one of those silly game shows like survivor or something. But back to the point, hiring armed forces of your own can put a serious dent in the aggressors plans, and could force them to quit the war against you quickly. Luckily for the both of you, the ability to hire such mercs will become much easier in the coming installment.

There is no one answer to your other question. People fight in high sec for various reasons. Perhaps because they enjoy the cap on ships. Maybe they enjoy small scale over large alliance duties. Maybe they just enjoy being near a trade hub. Or dare I say, some aren't equipped well enough to handle people who actually know pvp.

My group is usually hired to go after a target. What they do is of no concern, and I don't ask, I just put a track on them. If they run to low or null sec, I follow. If they hide in a wormhole, I'll find them. We don't discern between Mining barges or HAM Drakes.
When we aren't contracted by another entity we look for people who we feel are poorly running their corporation. If we feel we have sufficient evidence, we open up a Concorde approved investigation letting us to delve further into their corporate matters and allow us to write up a report to present to them on what they can do to improve their status as a corp and hopefully help prevent future transgressions against those looking for a target. We usually have more success with individual corp members than we do CEO's.

I hope this has helped answer some of your questions.


Shockingly, it does. Thank you for taking the time to write that up. While I am still against forcing miners to pvp but not forcing pvpers to mine, you are correct, there are ways around it. I'm mostly just shocked that this is considered a fix to a broken dec system (and that it is actually going to make it harder to go after blocs and large hi-sec alliances like the uni.

Anyways, thanks again for your post.
Dirk Culliford
Zero G Universal Enterprises
#149 - 2012-03-29 17:41:58 UTC
Add a factor to the cost for the size difference between aggressor and defender.

That way, small entity wars cost little with big powerblocks sinking large amounts. The extra factor prevents an alliance war deccing a 1 man corp for pennies. Not sure what the issue is with small corps deccing large ones but the factor could penalize this as well if you needed.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#150 - 2012-03-29 17:42:34 UTC
Can we also include victory conditions for those who would like the tools to determine what constitutes a victory or loss?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#151 - 2012-03-29 17:43:25 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:

This is also a misconception. There are quite a few larger corporations in high sec, including alliances, that are not only understanding and flexible with pilots outside affairs, but they also sport a wider range of pilots including solo'rs and pvp'rs.


That is a point, and eventually I really should look into them again.
Though it quickly brings up the 'what does a corp offer?' other then a chat room? I am assuming such casual-friendly corps do not give random people the ability to set up POSes (since that is a corp wide ability), which is one of the few mechanical things a player corp can do that the NPC one can not, at least from an indy perspective.

I guess I could see a preferred trade/price network within the corp too. Hrm...
Dubaschu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-03-29 17:44:07 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Besbin wrote:
Cosmetic suggestion:

Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup.

It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report".


I like this idea <3

I wish I came up with it myselfOops



YES PLS...That is alot better
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#153 - 2012-03-29 17:45:30 UTC
Possible pricing:

if (defender is larger) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 - diff_fee * diff_size^1/5
if (defender is smaller) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 + diff_fee * diff_size^1/5
Minimum size for attacker/defender is calculated as 20 on each side.

Base Fee = 40M
Multiplier based on total size = 80M
Multiplier based on size diff = 40M

20 attk 20 = 241M
20 attk 1000 = 334M
20 attk 8000 = 556M

1000 attk 20 = 651M
1000 attk 1000 = 575M
1000 attk 8000 = 584M

8000 attk 20 = 1038M
8000 attk 1000 = 1054M
8000 attk 8000 = 940M

It does mean that wars are more expensive at the low-end of the scale, but the N^1/4 scaling means that wars never get ridiculously expensive.

There should also be some sort of multiplier that additional wardecs on top of what you have are more and more expensive (just like now).

Size difference may also be better calculated as a ratio of attacker/defender, with a minimum of 20 for each.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2012-03-29 17:46:45 UTC
Hey CCP are you going to be making sure these new wardec mechanics apply equally to NPC corps?
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#155 - 2012-03-29 17:47:10 UTC
I have a suggestion for
Quote:
MUTUAL WARS!
If the war is mutual, it could be free... until it is no longer mutual... that would be great for corps like RvB and perhaps other corps will do the same thing

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
gfldex
#156 - 2012-03-29 17:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: gfldex
Arrs Grazznic wrote:

Quote:

They are not going to do that because it would mean privateers would come back. Those fellow highsec pirates had simply to much fun blowing folk up in Jita. (And they where not really fighting for anythign but the lolz.)

I have no problem with the 10 man corp having to pay the 4b isk to dec the large origanisation. For me the problem is the cost to the large alliance is so small it is irrelevant. A large corp / alliance could effectively perma-dec many smaller 10 man corps for ***** and giggles and not notices the cost.


So if you have 100 folk decing 10x10 folk it's going to be less pricy then if 100 go for 100 directly? I don't think so. And don't forget the ally thingy. If you dec 10 folk and they get 1000 waiting in their backyard (Some ppl have friends who like to fight in highsec. Even the MC fabricated halve of their "contracts".). That's a free war for the 1000 folk against 100.

With the new system wardecs can backfire big time. Something that requires alliance forgery right now.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#157 - 2012-03-29 17:49:25 UTC
Basic conclusion: you're trying to fix a few loopholes, but in the proces create new loopholes. The wardec changes only make things complicated without solving anything. The basic problem is that if people don't want to pvp they will find ways to avoid it. CCP should learn to live with that and move on.
Herschel Yamamoto
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-03-29 17:51:53 UTC
I was worried about this change, since there's a fair number of ways it could go wrong, but I think you guys have gotten it right. Everything looks good to me - well done.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2012-03-29 17:53:28 UTC
El 1974 wrote:
Basic conclusion: you're trying to fix a few loopholes, but in the proces create new loopholes. The wardec changes only make things complicated without solving anything. The basic problem is that if people don't want to pvp they will find ways to avoid it. CCP should learn to live with that and move on.

Then remove the ability to effect the economy while in highsec (wallet freeze, forbid freighters in highsec, disable mining turrets) because last i checked market pvp was still pvp.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#160 - 2012-03-29 17:54:32 UTC
"Reverse" the formula. Make it relatively cheaper for a small entity to wardec a large one and relatively expensive for a large entity to wardec a small one.

Of course, if the cost of a one man corp to wardec goons is like 10-20M, the formula is fine, even if the cost goons to wardec a one man corp is 10 ISK.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos