These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
#361 - 2012-03-30 12:44:01 UTC
May O'Neez wrote:
Having theses kludges in HiSec (like wars or Concord) at the moment sound more and more like a lie or trying to dance around the actual problems. HiSec, I think, has been thought at the beginning as a "Coffee Shop" (cf World of Darkness presentation in Fanfest, if you see what I mean), the actual Sandbox was not meant to be there.

Maybe at the end a better solution would be to put the losec limit to 0.8 instead of 0.5 ... war system then would be of no use and player would be more trained to "danger". Fanfest presentations clearly were towards PvP, if they actually want EVE to be mainly PvP, they have to do more changes to it. Yes, lots of people will quit, but it may be temporary (... or not). Or maybe you could be surprised as the fights would be diluted among more systems, thus having a "relative" security in certains areas (not including mercs doing the current Concord job). But all of this probably won't happen, too much impacts and too much people fearing the worst.


The problem is, CCP is discovering the same thing UO did... the pure PvP sandbox is not sustainable. There simply are not the number of players interested necessary to keep such a complex world running. The dev's started EvE with this null sec image from the failure of UO, but EvE succeeded because it blended multiple playstyles in one universe, allowing the PvE population to balance (and fund) the much smaller PvP/null one. If they rip out high sec, the player base will shrink, and all these shiney graphical updates that people drool over (not to mention server costs) become unviable... not to mention the inflation you would get as all that cheap industry goes away.
JackEuchre
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2012-03-30 12:44:34 UTC
Some issues.

1. Instajoining, Delayed joining. Allowing people to hop/jump into a corp allows an exploit to continue where Aggressor corp initially starts with a 4 day old alt as CEO and no other members. About day 5, everyone joins in and can fight as soon as they dock and undock (session change). Unsuspecting target corp is not afraid of a 1 man corp deccing them and is out missioning in their Navy Ravens, unbeknown to them that the aggressor corp will be 50 person large in 30 seconds or less, and the CNRs are currently being probed down. Further, since this is day 5, the aggressor only has 2 day committment.

(always being on to propose solutions to problems)
Solution: A. Corp Rosters are made available and changes cause notifications. Further a forced 24 hour delay in joining or leaving a corp is enforced, so if someone joins a corp, they have to wait 24 hours to fight, while both sides can examine the roster changes. Or you can just prevent the aggressor form adding new players or players dropping completely.

2. Alt Corp Lockouts. Typical rule in incursions is not to RR players in war. Incursion corp sees a new corp/alliance getting into these and contesting sites. They have a 1 person, 3 day old corp dec the new incursion corp so they are locked out, unless they do it completely as an entity.

Solution:
Work the forumula for war cost to include some form of factor for corp size differernce. I know this won't be a simple calculation, but if corp size differences are more than 4x, then the cost per player doubles, 8x, tripples, 16x it is 4 times the usual calculation. So if 10 man corp declares war on 160 man corp, the cost is then four times what it would be. Also, in reverse, if 160 person corp declares warp on 10 man indi corp, the cost is quadroupled.
KanashiiKami
#363 - 2012-03-30 12:47:59 UTC
Nekopyat wrote:
Citizen Smif wrote:

The reason people hate miners and such is because they expect special treatment. Time and time again they're ganked.. They don't check the forums.. They don't look to adapt or find any help. They are by far the stupidest crowd in EVE and that's why they're eliminated, they are easy ripe pickings just there for the taking. That's darwinism for you. Unlike real life though if you fail at the game just stay in an NPC corp (damnit just realise I'm in one Oops)


Special treatment? I think mining and industry peeps would be happy if we got even a tenth of the attention and priority that PvPers got. We don't want 'special' treatment, we just want treatment. But time and time again null bears, PvPers, and CCP seem to think that we are 'doing it wrong' and need to be pulled out of our play style into one of the chosen ones, so they keep giving carrots to the other types and hitting us with sticks.


so miner mining, local lights up, hostile warps in on group of exhumers ... they are still aligning ...

tell me, is there a game mechanism to enable miners to engage some kind of safety net to this? even if the bunch of miners in hisec have a guard party of 100 BC, it then does not warrant them to kill themselves over gankers, while gankers have warranted themselves to kill themsleves over miners ... WHERE IS THE SAFETY NET FOR MINERS?

in short, miners have become fodder for trigger happy pilots ... it is so easy to kill

like what mittani said ... laughing, the hero who smartbombed 22-23 mackinaws ..

and then i also think ... CCP is not listening at all, so maybe i shud set on my own warpath and go about destroying things in EVE too.

WUT ???
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#364 - 2012-03-30 12:58:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
Yes - the miners are at any time free to declare war against these culprits and teach them a lesson.

Unfortunately CCP have decided that since mining barges are civilian ships and not combat ships they should not have any buffer whatsoever. Blaim CCP, but that post belongs in a thread about Crimewatch or ship balance and not in this thread about war mechanics...

You should never be 100% safe in Eve - I guess if you don't want to lose anything you shouldn't undock...

Pinky
KanashiiKami
#365 - 2012-03-30 13:00:49 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
Nekopyat wrote:
May O'Neez wrote:
Having theses kludges in HiSec (like wars or Concord) at the moment sound more and more like a lie or trying to dance around the actual problems. HiSec, I think, has been thought at the beginning as a "Coffee Shop" (cf World of Darkness presentation in Fanfest, if you see what I mean), the actual Sandbox was not meant to be there.

Maybe at the end a better solution would be to put the losec limit to 0.8 instead of 0.5 ... war system then would be of no use and player would be more trained to "danger". Fanfest presentations clearly were towards PvP, if they actually want EVE to be mainly PvP, they have to do more changes to it. Yes, lots of people will quit, but it may be temporary (... or not). Or maybe you could be surprised as the fights would be diluted among more systems, thus having a "relative" security in certains areas (not including mercs doing the current Concord job). But all of this probably won't happen, too much impacts and too much people fearing the worst.


The problem is, CCP is discovering the same thing UO did... the pure PvP sandbox is not sustainable. There simply are not the number of players interested necessary to keep such a complex world running. The dev's started EvE with this null sec image from the failure of UO, but EvE succeeded because it blended multiple playstyles in one universe, allowing the PvE population to balance (and fund) the much smaller PvP/null one. If they rip out high sec, the player base will shrink, and all these shiney graphical updates that people drool over (not to mention server costs) become unviable... not to mention the inflation you would get as all that cheap industry goes away.


you know what i think will be a viable change?

MINERS now no longer use mining lasers

MINERS now have to train large laser lv4. and asteroids can now only be targetted by miner classed ships and can only be destroyed by them. each blast cycle creates loot can drops of ore. and if they spot a hostile ... THEY SHOOT IT WITH THE SAME LAZOR

MINERS in said above mining run will have to engage a mining operation beacon bubble. bubble drop requires mining foreman lv4, done with orca/rorqual. orca now has option to drop other forms of beacons that improve survivability of miner ships ...

any1 coming into the bubble of this beacon can be attacked at will by miners of the same fleet beacon.

due to this beaconing, CCP should now also change the way a asteroid belt looks. YES you should improve the looks of the asteroid belt not just a nebulae (which looks pretty but it is not spacey looking btw) ... the new mine-able asteroids are STREWN in a random splay spanning 150km around PLANETs ... and in lower sec status system ... actual belts should be in place ... and i mean belt that stretch AUs ...

NOW THIS is what i call a SAFETY net for miners

is this still a mining op? yes
are miners now armed with teeth? yes
can they still be ganked? yes
will it benefit real miners? yes
will crazy gankers start to gank more miner? probably YES too
will this discourage ganking? YES
will gankers become more bold in gank effort? YES OF COURSE, USE more BRUtix!!!


NOW THIS ... is a positive indy change ... this is what i call a real add on to indy miner ops ...

WUT ???
Citizen Smif
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2012-03-30 13:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Citizen Smif
KanashiiKami wrote:
Nekopyat wrote:
Citizen Smif wrote:

The reason people hate miners and such is because they expect special treatment. Time and time again they're ganked.. They don't check the forums.. They don't look to adapt or find any help. They are by far the stupidest crowd in EVE and that's why they're eliminated, they are easy ripe pickings just there for the taking. That's darwinism for you. Unlike real life though if you fail at the game just stay in an NPC corp (damnit just realise I'm in one Oops)


Special treatment? I think mining and industry peeps would be happy if we got even a tenth of the attention and priority that PvPers got. We don't want 'special' treatment, we just want treatment. But time and time again null bears, PvPers, and CCP seem to think that we are 'doing it wrong' and need to be pulled out of our play style into one of the chosen ones, so they keep giving carrots to the other types and hitting us with sticks.


so miner mining, local lights up, hostile warps in on group of exhumers ... they are still aligning ...

tell me, is there a game mechanism to enable miners to engage some kind of safety net to this? even if the bunch of miners in hisec have a guard party of 100 BC, it then does not warrant them to kill themselves over gankers, while gankers have warranted themselves to kill themsleves over miners ... WHERE IS THE SAFETY NET FOR MINERS?

in short, miners have become fodder for trigger happy pilots ... it is so easy to kill

like what mittani said ... laughing, the hero who smartbombed 22-23 mackinaws ..

and then i also think ... CCP is not listening at all, so maybe i shud set on my own warpath and go about destroying things in EVE too.


/facepalm

I'll try and get into the point of view of a miner who actually has a fraction of a brain.

Heres what I would do. The first paragraph with be if I am an ordinary miner, the second will be if I'm an ice miner.

Ok, if I was a normal miner: for a start I'd pick a system that didn't have 100+ people in local. Hmmm... Let's pick a system that has 1 or 2.. Or 10 tops. That way I can keep an eye on local (unheard of right!?), if it's hulkageddon and I see an outlaw or someone jump in I'll gtfo.. And you may be thinking at this point.. "Oh but it's high security space, I should be safe." No. You'd probably be safer in null sec, these are the facts. Or you'll think "Oh but I'll have to click 'show info' on every character!". No. You could have been gradually building up a standings list.. Yes you'd probably take some losses but join the club. The problem is you do not think - you are all little more than those barren rocks you seem to be so obsessed with.

Sum up of tips for an ordinary miner - Set standings, go to a system with a small population (preferably away from The Forge), stay aligned to a celestial and preferably join a corp so your personal loss is minimized. Surely mining corps have ship replacement programmes?

Now for ice miners.. This one is very simple. Go to null sec - you'll have protection, you'll be able to see local.. Etc etc. High sec ice mining isn't particularly profitable, you're in very weak ships and you're all prime targets. The thought of leaving high sec just doesn't occur to you though does it?

I can completely understand the ethos behind "High sec should be safe" but the problem is it isn't. Yet rather than adapting like a null sec corp moving back to low, or a low sec corp moving to null or even when a high sec corp has to relocate due to war decs.. You'd rather ***** and moan about how the game mechanics are broken. Just grow a pair and move around a little bit.

But I forgot.. Miners don't actually play the game do they? That's too much "work." This will never be fixed, even if CONCORD is buffed to be insta-ray of death we'd still get you.



Can you genuinely not see why you are perceived as the scum of the universe?
Shepard Book
Underground Stargate
#367 - 2012-03-30 13:12:38 UTC
Q: Neutral parties in a fight?
A: This is part of crime watch and not handled specifically by the war system. RRing someone in a legal war fight in hi sec adds a Suspect flag. This won't solve RRing as such, so maybe something more needs to be done, but this is what we're planning for Inferno.



It is crazy to me that this is not a priority to fix.
KanashiiKami
#368 - 2012-03-30 13:14:41 UTC
Citizen Smif wrote:
KanashiiKami wrote:
Nekopyat wrote:
Citizen Smif wrote:

The reason people hate miners and such is because they expect special treatment. Time and time again they're ganked.. They don't check the forums.. They don't look to adapt or find any help. They are by far the stupidest crowd in EVE and that's why they're eliminated, they are easy ripe pickings just there for the taking. That's darwinism for you. Unlike real life though if you fail at the game just stay in an NPC corp (damnit just realise I'm in one Oops)


Special treatment? I think mining and industry peeps would be happy if we got even a tenth of the attention and priority that PvPers got. We don't want 'special' treatment, we just want treatment. But time and time again null bears, PvPers, and CCP seem to think that we are 'doing it wrong' and need to be pulled out of our play style into one of the chosen ones, so they keep giving carrots to the other types and hitting us with sticks.


so miner mining, local lights up, hostile warps in on group of exhumers ... they are still aligning ...

tell me, is there a game mechanism to enable miners to engage some kind of safety net to this? even if the bunch of miners in hisec have a guard party of 100 BC, it then does not warrant them to kill themselves over gankers, while gankers have warranted themselves to kill themsleves over miners ... WHERE IS THE SAFETY NET FOR MINERS?

in short, miners have become fodder for trigger happy pilots ... it is so easy to kill

like what mittani said ... laughing, the hero who smartbombed 22-23 mackinaws ..

and then i also think ... CCP is not listening at all, so maybe i shud set on my own warpath and go about destroying things in EVE too.


/facepalm

I'll try and get into the point of view of a miner who actually has a fraction of a brain.

Heres what I would do if I had no soul. The first paragraph with be if I am an ordinary miner, the second will be if I'm an ice miner.

Ok, if I was a normal miner: for a start I'd pick a system that didn't have 100+ people in local. Hmmm... Let's pick a system that has 1 or 2.. Or 10 tops. That way I can keep an eye on local (unheard of right!?), if it's hulkageddon and I see an outlaw or someone jump in I'll gtfo.. And you may be thinking at this point.. "Oh but it's high security space, I should be safe." No. You'd probably be safer in null sec, these are the facts. Or you'll think "Oh but I'll have to click 'show info' on every character!". No. You could have been gradually building up a standings list.. Yes you'd probably take some losses but join the club. The problem is you do not think - you are all little more than those barren rocks you seem to be so obsessed with.

Sum up of tips for an ordinary miner - Set standings, go to a system with a small population (preferably away from The Forge), stay aligned to a celestial and preferably join a corp so your personal loss is minimized. Surely you soulless miners have ship replacement programmes?

Now for ice miners.. This one is very simple. Go to null sec - you'll have protection, you'll be able to see local.. Etc etc. High sec ice mining isn't particularly profitable, you're in very weak ships and you're all prime targets. The thought of leaving high sec just doesn't occur to you though does it?

I can completely understand the ethos behind "High sec should be safe" but the problem is it isn't. Yet rather than adapting like a null sec corp moving back to low, or a low sec corp moving to null or even when a high sec corp has to relocate due to war decs.. You'd rather ***** and moan about how the game mechanics are broken. Just grow a pair and move around a little bit.

But I forgot.. Miners don't actually play the game do they? That's too much "work."



Can you genuinely not see why you are perceived as the scum of the universe?


you are so right monocles :p ... i like monocles ...

WUT ???
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#369 - 2012-03-30 13:16:09 UTC
Citizen Smif wrote:
PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY!


If the forum allowed images, I would make a sign with that, it would be very handy. Roll
Citizen Smif
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#370 - 2012-03-30 13:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Citizen Smif
KanashiiKami wrote:



you are so right monocles :p ... i like monocles ...


Why thank you Cool

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Citizen Smif wrote:
PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY!


If the forum allowed images, I would make a sign with that, it would be very handy. Roll



Na I like industry, people who trade etc. It requires some intelligence and that's why the game is great.

What I don't like is a crowd of people who ***** and moan at every oppurtunity which will most likely result in high sec made into World of Evecraft.
gfldex
#371 - 2012-03-30 13:16:33 UTC
Nekopyat wrote:

The problem is, CCP is discovering the same thing UO did... the pure PvP sandbox is not sustainable. There simply are not the number of players interested necessary to keep such a complex world running. The dev's started EvE with this null sec image from the failure of UO, but EvE succeeded because it blended multiple playstyles in one universe, allowing the PvE population to balance (and fund) the much smaller PvP/null one. If they rip out high sec, the player base will shrink, and all these shiney graphical updates that people drool over (not to mention server costs) become unviable... not to mention the inflation you would get as all that cheap industry goes away.


May I ask where you get your knowledge from? I wonder because if the pure PVE fraction is the majority, why are there so many chars listen on killboards? And why are there so many player in mission hubs with a sec status below 0.0? Did they all shoot random bypasser by accident?

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
KanashiiKami
#372 - 2012-03-30 13:20:26 UTC
Citizen Smif wrote:
KanashiiKami wrote:



you are so right monocles :p ... i like monocles ...


Why thank you Cool


*sigh* another one of those ...

WUT ???
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#373 - 2012-03-30 13:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Karim alRashid
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Citizen Smif wrote:
PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY!


If the forum allowed images, I would make a sign with that, it would be very handy. Roll


Yeah, because all you do is repeat that bullshit. Roll

I think the problem is that you mistake EvE for a glorified chat program.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
KanashiiKami
#374 - 2012-03-30 13:22:41 UTC
it has already become evecraft many moons ago ... with that T2 BPO saga ...

WUT ???
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#375 - 2012-03-30 13:34:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Nekopyat wrote:
May O'Neez wrote:
Having theses kludges in HiSec (like wars or Concord) at the moment sound more and more like a lie or trying to dance around the actual problems. HiSec, I think, has been thought at the beginning as a "Coffee Shop" (cf World of Darkness presentation in Fanfest, if you see what I mean), the actual Sandbox was not meant to be there.

Maybe at the end a better solution would be to put the losec limit to 0.8 instead of 0.5 ... war system then would be of no use and player would be more trained to "danger". Fanfest presentations clearly were towards PvP, if they actually want EVE to be mainly PvP, they have to do more changes to it. Yes, lots of people will quit, but it may be temporary (... or not). Or maybe you could be surprised as the fights would be diluted among more systems, thus having a "relative" security in certains areas (not including mercs doing the current Concord job). But all of this probably won't happen, too much impacts and too much people fearing the worst.


The problem is, CCP is discovering the same thing UO did... the pure PvP sandbox is not sustainable. There simply are not the number of players interested necessary to keep such a complex world running. The dev's started EvE with this null sec image from the failure of UO, but EvE succeeded because it blended multiple playstyles in one universe, allowing the PvE population to balance (and fund) the much smaller PvP/null one. If they rip out high sec, the player base will shrink, and all these shiney graphical updates that people drool over (not to mention server costs) become unviable... not to mention the inflation you would get as all that cheap industry goes away.


Yes, that's a long standing trend. I think some CCP didn't notice how the project is now 15 years old (1997-2012, Hilmar dixit) and what is so cool when you're 25 often it's a PITA when you're 40.

EACH YEAR the playerbase is growing older; last average i know was around 34 years old. It's about time that CCP stops catering to teens and nolifers, as they got other games to play, whereas EVE is the only quite-adult MMORPG around; a MMO sbdy can play being 50 or 60 and not feel ashamed of it, at least until someone calls for the suicide of a player and the whole internet learns of it. Roll

And CCP is pushing this people out of the game by effectively harrassing them with growing free griefing. If the young ones don't join and you fukk the old grumps until they quit, your fate as a business is null.

And for god's sake, just don't "fix" what is nor "broken"! Sure CCP SoniClover & buddies can justify their paychecks doing useful stuff rather than figure new ways to fukk hiseccers...
Dirala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#376 - 2012-03-30 13:35:17 UTC
Ten Bulls wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

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.


Sorry, but thats not good enough.

There needs to be a way for defenders to have a bounty payment system, like automatically pay the mercs based on ISK loss to aggressor (or something like that).

Aggressor (probably merc) and ally (merc) will be able to easily exploit the system you describe by mutually agreeing not to honour the wardec, honor among thieves and all that.

Do it properly.


TL;DR
-hire Mercs like Contracts, with payment based on damage to the Agressor.
-make a collateral system, where the payment for isk destroyed comes from.
-better name means more payment.


Make it like the Contract System.
For example:
A Corp is deced, and puts up a Contract for Mercs Corps to accept.
The Contract payes 10mio up front, and has 1Bil in the Colateral with a 25% payout per damage done.
So when the Merc Corp does 400mio in damage to the agressor, they get 100mio from the collateral until there is no collateral left.
The defending corp can put up more collateral, or leave it.
If they leave it the Merc corp wouldn't be interested in doing more damage cause the payment is gone(although hey could if they wanted), but they already did 4Bil damage to the agressor.

That way, the Merc Corp is sure to get the payment based on what they are worth, and the Defending Corp is sure to hurt the agressor which would eventually retract.

When the name of the Agressing corp is included in the Contract of the defending corp, and the reputation of the agressor is really good, the defender would have to up the price by doing more collateral or giving a higher Percentage per killes ISK.
Hence, making it more expensive for the defender and more lucrative for the Merc.

The ISK payed should never exceed the value detroyed(excluding loot), because than an alt corp of the agressor could just kill stuff and get the collateral.

The numbers would have to be crunched thought.
Severian Carnifex
#377 - 2012-03-30 13:38:04 UTC
bornaa wrote:
I found one good proposal, please CCP, read it!!!!AttentionAttentionAttention


Form Eve News24 comments:

"Take the Killboards of the aggressor and the defender as base for the calculation.

The bigger the difference the more expensive the wardec must be. Will protect mining-corps or R&D-corps better then the membercount."


And bind corp killboards with member kill boards so that there can't be infinite number of corps only for one or two war decs and then killed.
Killboards of corps will be combined killboards of its members. (your record goes with you in the new corp you join.)
I think it would be perfect.


^^ This would work very well for pricing.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#378 - 2012-03-30 13:39:32 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Nekopyat wrote:

The problem is, CCP is discovering the same thing UO did... the pure PvP sandbox is not sustainable. There simply are not the number of players interested necessary to keep such a complex world running. The dev's started EvE with this null sec image from the failure of UO, but EvE succeeded because it blended multiple playstyles in one universe, allowing the PvE population to balance (and fund) the much smaller PvP/null one. If they rip out high sec, the player base will shrink, and all these shiney graphical updates that people drool over (not to mention server costs) become unviable... not to mention the inflation you would get as all that cheap industry goes away.


May I ask where you get your knowledge from? I wonder because if the pure PVE fraction is the majority, why are there so many chars listen on killboards? And why are there so many player in mission hubs with a sec status below 0.0? Did they all shoot random bypasser by accident?


You know that the biggest single faucet in the game are rewards/bounties, do you? Just nobody makes a "mission runner/ratter hall of fame" accounting for NPC destroyed, rewards collected and so.

That stats don't count them doesn't means that they aren't there.
gfldex
#379 - 2012-03-30 13:49:20 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
And CCP is pushing this people out of the game by effectively harrassing them with growing free griefing. If the young ones don't join and you fukk the old grumps until they quit, your fate as a business is null.


It is indeed worth noting that the sky will fall when there will be less wardecs.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
#380 - 2012-03-30 13:51:15 UTC
If you want to encourage the defender to fight make so that the ‘winner’ of the current week gets to determine if the war is renewed rather than always letting the aggressor decide.

Fear God and Thread Nought