These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#21 - 2012-03-29 14:40:23 UTC
Hayaishi wrote:
I like how the killmails show the coords in space where the person was killed :3


I have some bad news for you, that information will most likely not be in the killmails. The killmails design is still being iterated on and the final version will probably look quite different from what you see there Sad

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#22 - 2012-03-29 14:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
My question is would the number of people in the agressor corp modify the cost of war vs the numbers in the defender corp?

It would be awful if one-five man corps started getting wardecc'ed just bcause.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Vrykolakasis
Sparrowhawks Corp
#23 - 2012-03-29 14:42:34 UTC
There is something seriously wrong with that Vargur.
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#24 - 2012-03-29 14:43:30 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Hayaishi wrote:
I like how the killmails show the coords in space where the person was killed :3


I have some bad news for you, that information will most likely not be in the killmails. The killmails design is still being iterated on and the final version will probably look quite different from what you see there Sad


Is there a reason for not including xyz coordinates? I recall hearing at fanfest (might've been the crimewatch presentation or the war dec one) that xyz might be included - which would be awesome for visualising fights on killboards!

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Nair Alderau
The Blessed Chains of Freedom
#25 - 2012-03-29 14:43:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nair Alderau
Did i miss something or did you just say that you added all items to the market?

(esp. those that have only been contract-tradeable so far?)

Will officer-drops now be traded on the ordinary market?
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
#26 - 2012-03-29 14:47:49 UTC
Please let us know what your plans are regarding mutual wars.

Will any possible rules regarding having some sort of black mark against your name or limits on corp hopping apply to mutual wars?

Also if two corps are engaged in a mutual war will they be able to call upon each other as allies in a third war?

o7
Drac
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#27 - 2012-03-29 14:48:36 UTC
Nair Alderau wrote:
Did i miss something or did you just say that you added all items to the market?

(esp. those that have only been contract-tradeable so far?)

Will officer-drops now be traded on the ordinary market?


I asked the same question during the roundtable. Well, my question really was "What about stuff that can only be traded via contracts, will this factor in those?" Yes, this means that ALL THE THINGS will be able to be traded on the market, a move similar to when faction ships were once only tradeable on contracts, and then were able to be traded on the regular market.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#28 - 2012-03-29 14:49:22 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:

this is just a mockup made by a UI designer. it's not a final version of how everything will look (we're still iterating on it and we've actually changed it a bit already since this is a version we used at Fanfest) and I'll try my best to make the data correct when I implement it Blink



UI looks great so far.

But the mini-map should really be a 3d version! Bear

That'd be sexy.


I am curious about the actual War Tab in the Corporations section, how is that going to change?

Where I am.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#29 - 2012-03-29 14:49:50 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Hayaishi wrote:
I like how the killmails show the coords in space where the person was killed :3


I have some bad news for you, that information will most likely not be in the killmails. The killmails design is still being iterated on and the final version will probably look quite different from what you see there Sad


Is there a reason for not including xyz coordinates? I recall hearing at fanfest (might've been the crimewatch presentation or the war dec one) that xyz might be included - which would be awesome for visualising fights on killboards!


It's on Five 0's long-term plan for killmail improvements as part of the general Crimewatch upgrade project, but if it does happen it'll be our team and it'll be later on Smile Don't expect it as part of Inferno!
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#30 - 2012-03-29 14:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Catching up on posts for this response.

No XYZ yet X

Hehe.

Where I am.
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
#31 - 2012-03-29 14:51:46 UTC
The changes you suggest for characters leaving and joining corps involved in a war - isk implications and not being able to join again if they leave - will be very bad for RvB. Cry
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-03-29 14:52:00 UTC
I like Dierdra Vaal idea quoted below too. Additional comments:

An assessment of damage done should accommodate neutral ships (for example, but not limited to, ships providing remote repair). The system could take into consideration kills of ships that have an aggression flag relating back to war targets.

Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Quote:
the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of at a whim's notice.


While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly.

The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war.

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.

Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely.

As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:
1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec.
2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports.
3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it.
4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war.

This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control!

Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Quote:
Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.


This, combined with the fact that you’re dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts?

Quote:
Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier?
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.


This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.

.
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-03-29 14:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
I like Dierdra Vaal idea quoted below too. Additional comment:

An assessment of damage done should accommodate neutral ships (for example, but not limited to, ships providing remote repair). The system could take into consideration kills of ships that have an aggression flag relating back to war targets.

Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Quote:
the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of at a whim's notice.


While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly.

The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war.

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.

Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely.

As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:
1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec.
2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports.
3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it.
4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war.

This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control!

Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Quote:
Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.


This, combined with the fact that you’re dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts?

Quote:
Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier?
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.


This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.

.
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-03-29 14:53:08 UTC
Can you please just merge all < 10 man corps into one jsut for lols?
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-03-29 14:56:10 UTC
Oh boy ISK values on killmails this will end well.
Professor Clio
Apocalypse Lancers
#36 - 2012-03-29 14:56:26 UTC
Please think carefully about mutual decs and restrictions on joining/leaving a corp at war. We at RvB have had a mutual dec running between red and blue for years and our members come in and out of the corps at will. If you make that impossible anymore, our 3000 combined pilots are going to lose their little corner of the sandbox.
bornaa
GRiD.
#37 - 2012-03-29 14:59:20 UTC
This all ****** new war dec system is putting a barrier so that you cant war dec goons or test because it will cost you 5 BILLION isk per week.

You see, CCP want to secure large alliances from decs and screw smaller corps/alliances so that large one can easily attack them directly or with alt corps.
And as i can see, they are really struggling to kill industry in EVE - no fixes or upgrades for indy players for years while making better ganking ships and now they want make so that everybody war decs them.

Nice one CCP. Roll


And one more thing,
when you are attacked you can't do anything about it.
Attacker can easily get out of it - even if CCP is advertising this will make war more of commitment - yea, commitment for indy and smal corps to be screwed.

And yea, you are making that only big can do anything bad to big ones.
And that everybody can hurt the small ones.


large alliances now dont even need a neutral hauling alts in hi-sec.
they are completely protected while small corps/alliances are screwed and don't have any way to protect themselfs.

You see that with that you are pushing players that want to have something that belongs to them out of the game?
You are pushing them to quit EVE.

Many ppl are here doing industry and want to have feeling that they own their corporation and play with people they trust.

Now you are saying that if they don't join mega alliances (and pay few times 500 mill insurance fee first) that they cant play EVE?
Or you want to make EVE more single player game with 90% of people in NPC corps.
There is no third possibility.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#38 - 2012-03-29 14:59:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Karim alRashid
"Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends."

I don't think this is a good design.
In fact you're not allies, sharing a common goal, you are a contractor, a hired mercenary.

Such contracts should have a term. At the end of the term, both parties choose to continue or not the contract.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#39 - 2012-03-29 15:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: XIRUSPHERE
Once again, Remote Repair is in dire need to be affected by a session change timer. If you RR someone you should NEVER be invulnerable and be allowed to dock or jump through a gate with impunity. Stop candy assing around the carebears who use this obvious flaw in your agression mechanics as an exploit.

If you want to fix war fix the goddamn cheap exploits and crutches for good.

*Edit* It would appear this issue is finally going to be addressed, well done CCP.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#40 - 2012-03-29 15:02:09 UTC
There was talk about the current war dec mechanics as background for the ongoing revamp of crimewatch a while ago, where a CCP employee (cant remember the name) said something like "currently the existing mechanics is mainly used as a griefing tool".

What would be the CCP position on that statement with the new mechanics?