These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
spanner man
Hexxed Warriors
#161 - 2012-03-29 17:57:02 UTC
looks like ccp has caught some kind of head cold for want of a better word ? wtf are you messing with the wd'ng system to help thoes O.O numpty's no dought LEAVE THE BLOODY THING AS IS . or lets all go to o.o thats what they want o.o sucks for blobing pussies
gfldex
#162 - 2012-03-29 18:02:49 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
2) Put a strict limit on the number of allies a defender can bring into the war. I'm thinking three (3) is a pretty fair number.


If you do that players will be moved between corps to game the system.

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

SlaveNo A3157
Imperial Mechanics
#163 - 2012-03-29 18:03:10 UTC
Idea idia!

Make the war mechanism so that you can start a war but you don't need to extend it to empire. In other words. 0.0 corps could make wars and choose empire fighting as an option (this would naturaly cost).

This way the new fancy war tracking mechanism would show the results of bigger wars fought in 0.0 and low sec.
Skye Aurorae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2012-03-29 18:12:20 UTC
If a wardec is cancelled and the cooldown is initiated there needs to be the opportunity for the other side to extend the wardec uninterrupted (for a cost of course).

* Corp A declared was against B, A is losing so cancels wardec, B now has 24 hours to pay up and become the agressor.
* Corp A has declared war agains Corp B's Alliance, Corp B leaves alliance, corp A has opportunity to extend wardec immediately.

I've seen attempts to save POS towers by escaping wardecs such that the POS comes out of RF immediately after the cooldown.

Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21 - oh well.

Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#165 - 2012-03-29 18:18:00 UTC
Just make highsec into lowsec and be done with it. Keep it simple, stupid.

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

Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#166 - 2012-03-29 18:18:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Micheal Dietrich
Nekopyat wrote:
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...



Back in my Bear days, one of the corps that we ran in started a small alliance with our training corp and a few other small corps. The biggest requirement that was put on us when we wanted to go ahead with some plans was that we had to get up to a 5.0 sec rating for a pos installation in a 0.6. This lead to some major group mission running.
Now you are correct that each corp will vary. My friend and I were allowed to put up a second station along with some manufacturing plants in a neighboring system for our own use but we had to supply our own fuel and whatnot. Other corps may have restriction where a pos can go.
Other than that our alliance was mainly tied together to reduce chances of a war so there wasn't much communication there. our corp would run little 2-3 man mission ops (more ships, faster op) or sometimes we would combine trades so that one person would run a mission, clear the rooms, and then our miners would enter and mine in a relatively more secure area than they would a belt. If we set up for ice mining our mission runners may run guard though admittedly looking back at it we weren't the best equipped plus we honestly wouldn't be able to stop someone if they really wanted a kill that bad, the best we would be able to hope for is to scare away canflippers or grab loot after a suicide gank.

Edit: Forgot to add, those that could manufacture usually sold to members at cost of minerals, or if you bought the materials yourself they would do the work for free.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#167 - 2012-03-29 18:19:30 UTC
Cost for war should be done by active members loged in last week or month. It should only add 1 character per account so 500 man corp cant get members to use all char slot to make it 1500 members.
KanashiiKami
#168 - 2012-03-29 18:20:13 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
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.


i really like your suggestions

anyway, i disapprove of CCP's intentions on proposed changes on war mechanics, they are tentamount to allowing larger corps to beat down ALL smaller corps. it is saying i allow some one to bully anyone smaller. imagine tomorrow cash rich null sec coalitions move half of all thier military spares into hisec, and cast a war dec on every corp that has less than 50 man ...

WUT ???

May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
#169 - 2012-03-29 18:21:05 UTC
Merc contracts is a great addition, that will add ISK sinks and incitate new ways of playing.

Regarding the prices and mechanisms, I'm not pretty sure of the effect, but at the end probably they won't be more wars than currently, so people are afraid a bit too early I think.

Regarding avoiding wars (or rather their effect), going to 0.0 or joining NPC corps is no-go. If people don't want to do PvP, they must have ways to walk around. Travel, Mercs, special fits, ... but docking game is boring (IMHO both for attacker and attacked).
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#170 - 2012-03-29 18:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Quote:
Q: What about corp-hopping?
A: We're adding tracking in the backend to track this. How we will then display it in game is undecided, but we do have stories in the backlog (todo list) for the character war history to show if the character left a corp at war. We also want to have it cost a little to corp-hop during a war. We're also looking into not allowing you to join a corp you've left during a war while that war is still ongoing. We're also exploring some limitations to joining and leaving a corp on the fly.

My biggest concern is the ability to leave a corporation because it is at war, then re-join that corporation as soon as the danger is over. This is a rampant problem with wars as it currently stands; many corporations will completely abandon ship with all their members just to prevent the war from accomplishing anything, and this is currently rendering many wars meaningless. If you are to abandon a corporation there should be a certain amount of time before you are free of the aggression of the war, and there should be more direct consequences to constantly avoiding wars than a minor stigmata that shows up on your character sheet and does nothing.

My second biggest concern is the cost scaling with wars you did not choose to start. If a corporation leaves an alliance and you choose to continue the war against that corporation, it should exist as a subsection of the alliance war; it should fall under the same bill and add only its member count to the war cost. If an alliance were to entirely break up and all its corporations were to leave to avoid the consequences of a war (which happens with disturbing regularity), it should not cost a quadratic amount of isk to continue those 10 or 20 wars as if they were all separate.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#171 - 2012-03-29 18:22:14 UTC
May O'Neez wrote:
Merc contracts is a great addition, that will add ISK sinks and incitate new ways of playing.

Regarding the prices and mechanisms, I'm not pretty sure of the effect, but at the end probably they won't be more wars than currently, so people are afraid a bit too early I think.

Regarding avoiding wars (or rather their effect), going to 0.0 or joining NPC corps is no-go. If people don't want to do PvP, they must have ways to walk around. Travel, Mercs, special fits, ... but docking game is boring (IMHO both for attacker and attacked).

Giving money to another player is not an ISK sink.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Syekuda
Little Builders
#172 - 2012-03-29 18:27:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Syekuda
Opinion on the wardec changes: I vote for you guys to complete the new system and look at all the requests of all users and what you have on your todo list. Even if it takes more than your june deadline or the inferno expansion, I'm willing to wait for the new system to be ready 100% if you take all matters into considiration rather than releasing a new change that is 50% complete... especially when the wardec system is a big part of eveonline gameplay. That's my opinion though as I've seen to many features and changes not complete and I don't want this one to be part of the "I hate this change" list because it's incomplete or feels like it

That said here are some thoughts on those 2 questions a dev posted a few pages back


Quote:
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.


I find 20 for a corp and 50 mil for a corp to be supercheap especially the per member too. A small corp can make millions very easily. I don't have the numbers for the miners but for mission runners 100-350 per week is what they can make super easy. Some do more and some do worse but this is to say that 20m is not high enough.

Why should it be higher, well war should be costly so with this 20m it's not. One level 4 mission can have that payout you know. This is the reason it's too cheap.

By the way, why not make the wardec system pay your members who fights... think of a weekly allowance or something. Soldiers ain't free afaik Idea

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


Please do before releasing it, this is a big problem on both sides. I seriously don't know how to fix this myself but station games are freek'n boring and the current system doesn't do anything so in other words, its not encouraging fights... as it doesn't discouraging fights too. but if you ask me, if it's in a wardec shouldn't station camping be discouraged in some way ?
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-03-29 18:28:04 UTC
the agressor should be able to call in his first ally when the defender called in his second one, always having one less than the defender. Another idea would be to allow more agressors to join an ongoing war for an isk fee

The defender should be able to grab the agressor by the Balls and somehow take over the war if interrested (the agressor has decided to not the war Fee for the next week, do you want to take over for XXX isk)


I also miss the idea of declaring war only for lowsec (reduced cost) and 00 (very reduced cost and an unlimited number of allies on each side), not sure about WHs, but i don't see a reason Why the wh dwellers should not be allowed to enjoy the war reports
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#174 - 2012-03-29 18:28:04 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Just make highsec into lowsec and be done with it. Keep it simple, stupid.


Oddly enough, there is merit to that.

There is another game that I play that went that direction, they essentially have low sec and null sec but no equivelent of high sec (except in maybe a few starter systems). Not only that but they make player owned structures cheap and profitable... and interseting thing happens,.. having so many targets available takes the novelty away from 'lets go blow something up' and players only start doing what really profits them. It also has a good 'theft' mechanic so you have levels of attacking.. you don't have to blow all the buildings in order to get loot, so the cost of being attacked can be much lower (which encourages people to have assets to risk).

One of EvE's problems is the 'all or nothing' attacking. Imagine things like piracy if you only had to risk your cargo and not your cargo+ship+implants, or if POSes could be raided without having to destroy everything. Though I guess that would reduce the ISK sinks and manufacturing need....
KanashiiKami
#175 - 2012-03-29 18:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
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.



i really like your total count method ... but look at it ... THERE IS TOO MANY ALTS lol

BUT i wonder if CCP created this system to allow merciless killing off of smaller corps ...

WUT ???

Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#176 - 2012-03-29 18:31:07 UTC
Micheal Dietrich wrote:


Back in my Bear days, one of the corps that we ran in started a small alliance with our training corp and a few other small corps. The biggest requirement that was put on us when we wanted to go ahead with some plans was that we had to get up to a 5.0 sec rating for a pos installation in a 0.6. This lead to some major group mission running.
Now you are correct that each corp will vary. My friend and I were allowed to put up a second station along with some manufacturing plants in a neighboring system for our own use but we had to supply our own fuel and whatnot. Other corps may have restriction where a pos can go.


That actually sounds pretty sweet. Did you have trouble with corp members screwing with each other's POSes?
Bruce Blacky
Blacky Invention Research Development YinYang
#177 - 2012-03-29 18:36:15 UTC
What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.

Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again.
Leaving the defender with no means to kill his (real) agressor?

Will you adress that?

(in case you need details see petition i posted about that incident)

Cheers
Bruce
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#178 - 2012-03-29 18:38:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Karim alRashid
Bruce Blacky wrote:
What about war decs by corps with one character 40 jumps away.

Then when they sppot you in space, multiple characxters (lets say 4) join that war party (the agressor), kill the defender and leave the corp again.


I believe this is declared an exploit.


PS. Well, depends: f https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427917#post427917

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

Avila Cracko
#179 - 2012-03-29 18:38:46 UTC
Thnx to CCP for looking for every possible way to destroy EVE. Ugh

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#180 - 2012-03-29 18:39:37 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: 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: 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


Everything is great except for pricing as it relates to the quotes above.

Why did you decide that it was a good idea that large player entities could wardec small ones at trivial costs, but small player entities to wardec large ones would equate to astronomical costs? What's the motivation for this?

If you think you're going to drive High Sec players into power blocks like Eve Uni or Null Sec alliances I think you'll be disappointed, most are in High Sec precisely because their too independent minded or casual to fit in with large organized player structures. You may get some giant warshield alliance, but there won't be any meaningful social aspect to it that adds to gameplay

Wardecs cost should be based on the number of attackers not defenders. Fees should be just enough that going to war isn't overly trivial, but it shouldn't be used as a means to restrict players from declaring war, especially the current system which empowers blob entities and the very rich while completely disenfranchising small corps, casuals, and the ISK poor

To avoid gaming the system I offer you a solution

When a War is declared or renewed the wardecing party must purchase a war declaration contract based on how many members it wants to be allowed to participate. When purchased this cannot be lower than the current members of the wardecing party. If during that week the Wardecing party exceeds the number purchased through recruitment the defender may if they choose end the war at any time up until the war is renewed the following week

So this system allows flexibility in the payment scheme, is based on number of attackers, and the defending party can drop the war at no cost should the attackers abuse the system. In my view it's a much more balanced payment system than the one proposed by you (CCP)