EVE Information Portal

That's the CCP fairness and how they fix things.
They don't have time for EVE anymore as I see it.
They just want to "quick fix" things so they can say the "fixed" it.
And they don't even look what they ****** up with that "fix".
This "fix" is not fixing anything, its only braking so much things and we can forget about new "fix" for few years again when they putt it out. (if then will be EVE anymore)
EVE do not need "fixes", EVE need re-doing of almost all ingame mechanics.
And EVE don't need DEVs that only support one small group of players.

Well, I am saying this now because i care for EVE... but, i am looking forward to see more riots and quitting if/when this comes out.
That **** is always fun to watch.

No no no! I want to become a boss monster! (scroll down to #1)

It seems that the "gains of winning" are still too nebulas. In Null sec winning a war means new territory and new access to systems.

In hi sec gains of winning are what? Isk? That's boring. How about making the stakes more interesting, like the looser can't use the market, labs, or factory in a constellation for a month or something that more fun like that.

If not its still just a grief fest.

yk

You'll have to excuse my not reading the previous 24 pages, but I'll just post the notes I made at fanfest and the roundtable. A brief scan gives the impression that a lot of this has already been said, but I want to be a busy-body and say the same thing anyway…

Setting wardec cost as a function of target size only is a thoroughly bad idea. It will have the following effects:

· You are not removing decshielding — you are making it the default mechanic. Your stated intention is to remove those tactics, and instead you're institutionalising them and making them a core part of wardecs. You're doing the exact opposite of your stated goal.

· Likewise, decshedding will take on a new face: stay in a massive target alliance and drop out if the (unlikely) dec happens — it'll take longer than now, sure, but it's still better protection. Once again, you're not getting rid of the tactic, but rather doing the opposite of the stated goal en encoding it into the mechanics.

· You are encouraging everyone to go after small corps with massive numbers, replicating the current “meaningless grieferdec” use of wardecs. Again, the impression was that you was hoping to transition away from this use and instead give them some meaning, but the mechanic you're choosing is doing the exact opposite.

Having a ratio-based or difference-based cost is a far better solution. Be it ([target size] - [aggressor size]) × [target cost] or something along the lines of abs(ln( [targetsize] / [attackersize] )) × [target cost] (both in addition to the base cost for the war), size no longer becomes a protection in and of itself — being a large target means large attackers will come after you, and you'd better have enough people with guns padding those numbers to fend of that large attacker.

This kind of scheme has the added benefit of providing players with the ability to create cottage industries providing various services in connection to wardecs. Yes, you can still join a padding alliance to get the numbers up, but this means you're risking being attacked by a really big aggressor. If you stay small, you will (most likely) only be engaged by roughly equally small attackers. Likewise, if you want to attack a large target, you can also join a padding alliance to keep the cost down, but this comes with the risk of that target being actually able to defend itself (and now your padded, but actually really small, number of fighters have angered them…). Also, of course, that padding alliance is now at war, which means they might be hindered in their other line(s) of work, but maybe they're just a w-space group that just use this as an additional means to raise money…


It isn't mentioned in the blog, but in the presentation, it was said that wars could only be made mutual during the run-up 24h period. This is also a bad idea. Declaring a war mutual is a way to really hammer the point home that the attackers screwed up. Right now, and contrary to your stated goals, the attacker can indeed effectively get out of the war at will: they'll just skip the bill when they figure out they're in over their heads. Being able to declare the war mutual at that point — we're talking somewhere around day 6 or so here — and really come after those attackers means they need to think twice about what they're doing. This may be unbalanced with the idea of hiring allies/merc onto the side of the defender, at which point a mutual dec becomes very very nasty for the aggressors if those allies are still allowed to be engaged in the mutual dec. On the one hand, this is once again simply something the attacker will have to take into consideration — that's a good thing — and in the worst-case scenario, it could just be that any ally/merc contracts are simply dropped once the war goes mutual.

This will indeed solve RR:ing: bringing in neutral reps turns them red to everyone in the system. If you try to cheese a fight, the support ships become legal targets for anyone who wants to blow them up. I find it highly unlikely that anyone will try that when all it does is turn a fairly expensive logistics ship into a free loot piñata. Whether or not anything more needs to be done will depend on how you solve the issue of suspects being allowed to fight back against people who attack them…

Ill try to go step by step:

First:
Make killboard of corps as a combined killboard of their members so that players kill record goes with him when he change the corp.

Second:
Make difference between killboards of attacker and defender as a base for calculating war fee.
Something like this:
- Add up isk worth of all destroyed things by all members of the corp
- Add up isk worth of all losses of all members of the corp
- Subtract this two values
- Divide value that you got after last step with number of corp members. (*)

Third:
- Do above thing (from second step) for attacker and defender corp
- Subtract values of attacker and defender corp
- That value you have now use for calculating the price for war dec (multiply it with some number of isk and you get war dec fee)


This way you have system that will make cheap for PVPers to war dec PVPers regardless of number of players in corps.
And will make attacking indy/noob corp by the PVP corp expensive

If you have balls to attack someone who can fight back you will pay little, and if you are a wuss and attack someone who cant defend itself you will pay much.

I hope you understand better now.

p.s.
This was only an example so there can be changes.



Q: And how are you going to stop people from grabbing a character and putting a few thousand losses on it to have its presence in the corporation act as a decshield?

A: I think that if you calculating with ISK destroyed and calculate middle worth of it for entire corp you wont have that problem because it would be expensive way to do it. (you must destroy many many many of your own isk)



edit:
If you are worried that there may be some exploits (even if they are much much harder then with original CCPs proposal) then you can just erase (*) step (- Divide value that you got after last step with number of corp members.) and then there is no way to exploit it.
Its based on difference of ISK damage between attacker and defender but its more steep gradation.

So it will be virtually impossible to wardec the goons? while it will be super cheap to wardec small corps??
Whats going to be the formula for the price of wardec based on the number of members?

Another question is .. if the war can still be avoided by going to NPC corp.. why bother?? Effectively this creates a negative incentive for people to stay in corps. People who don't want to fight will still evade wardecs. If you force people to fight some of them will quit EVE. CCP clearly understands this so personal wardecs are not allowed.

But what exactly is the point of creating an inconvenience of forcing people to quit corps? The idea seems fundamentally flawed. Hisec is supposed to be a safe space, either you make it possible to be unsafe, or you make it impossible. This is equivalent to allowing to grief people who don't want to be griefed. Either make wardecs possible on everyone and lose a ton of subscribers.. or just remove the mechanic. Only difference I can see is it affects hisec corp assets such as POSes.

Thanks for the info. 50m is negligible, so is 0.5m/member for all but big alliances.

So what happens now if the corp leaves the alliance after wardec? The wardec lingers for as long as the original wardec? What about redeclaring the war? Surely the original war cannot be forked to two entities indefinitely for the same price? So effectively alliance hopping is still viable but the war sticks for a week now?

So all hisec industry corps will join into one huge 30000 man alliance with a bunch of alts with a massive shared pool of capital to hire mercs which nobody will wardec because they will know they will fail, all haulers will still be on NPC accounts. What exactly does this fix? Nothing?

The better public visibility of wars and their efficiency on each party's history is a good move. Unfortunately, it distracted me from seeing that the incentive and initiative aspects of starting a war have not yet been addressed solidly. Though, I can see the potential that reputation-wise it may in future be deterrent for aggressors to enter into such wars which later may not look good on their history.

On that matter, I absolutely like Dierdra's post with better suggestions and a simple "goal" that'll make wars more dynamic.

I'm not entirely sure that “make it the default mechanic” really qualifies as “fixed”…