These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gusto Gal
Doomheim
#501 - 2012-04-02 18:23:14 UTC
Add the ability to hire NPC's as mercs.

If hired NPC mercs spawn when defending corp ship is attacked and aid the corp which hired them. Spawn size should be something which will even the balance, so if defender outguns the attacker no spawn occurs. If attacker outguns defender NPC spawns with ships to balance the odds.

If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

Cost to defend your corp should equal cost aggressor paid to war dec you.
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2012-04-02 19:29:36 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:
Add the ability to hire NPC's as mercs.

If hired NPC mercs spawn when defending corp ship is attacked and aid the corp which hired them. Spawn size should be something which will even the balance, so if defender outguns the attacker no spawn occurs. If attacker outguns defender NPC spawns with ships to balance the odds.

If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

Cost to defend your corp should equal cost aggressor paid to war dec you.

I wish there was a dislike button.

Why? If I wanted to shoot at NPCs I'd go run missions.

Nohb Oddy likes you.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#503 - 2012-04-02 19:36:03 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:
If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

You realize that you would be able to have a neutral activate an assist module on a war target for a single cycle to spawn friendly NPCs right?
Gusto Gal
Doomheim
#504 - 2012-04-02 19:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Gusto Gal
Nohb Oddy wrote:

I wish there was a dislike button.

Why? If I wanted to shoot at NPCs I'd go run missions.


Well the indy corps don't like PVP, that makes it even. PVP corp forces an PVE corp into PVP. Now the PVE corp can force the PVP corp into PVE. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Gusto Gal
Doomheim
#505 - 2012-04-02 19:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Gusto Gal
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Gusto Gal wrote:
If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

You realize that you would be able to have a neutral activate an assist module on a war target for a single cycle to spawn friendly NPCs right?


Obviously there would have to be things worked out. My point was to put a stink in the equation so that PVP corps felt the same stink that PVE corps feel now. But more to the point. The new NPC spawned would only target the neutral rep.

There needs to be something which allows PVP corps to war dec all they want, but there needs to be something to allow PVE corps to sting back in an equal painful way.
Captian Otsolen
Doomheim
#506 - 2012-04-02 20:13:05 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:

There needs to be something which allows PVP corps to war dec all they want, but there needs to be something to allow PVE corps to sting back in an equal painful way.


Better if PVE not involved, but there needs to be an objective.

Make war end based upon a certain about of damage done. The higher the desired value the higher the war cost. Damage done to attacker lowers the ceiling so that war ends sooner.

This gives attacker a goal to shoot for and defender a reason to fight back as the more defender fights the faster war ends.

After war is over, defender is immune to wardec from attacker corp for same amount of time they were at war.
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#507 - 2012-04-02 20:16:28 UTC
gfldex wrote:
sankoku wrote:

The big corps and alliances, with vast resources, can wardec my corp for basically free

Yet, while they have manpower and resources far beyond mine, they are effectively perma-shielded against wardec by me


Big corps can dec you easy, that for sure. If they want to is a different matter.

For you decing big corps, maybe you can find some like minded folk and put some ISK together? Do you see where this is heading to? If you split a few billion by 50 it becomes a much less scary number. Privateers had a lot of fun. You can too, but it will cost you. Ofc, you better make sure you make the ISK back from that war or the war will be pretty short. If you hit the right target you can do that easy. If you let your hate find a target for you, well you will be broke.

CCP doesn't like all those little corps that bore new players out of that game. And I wont blame them. If you can't adapt to the new system or can't find a way to make ISK proper (a few billion a week ain't that hard in highsec) you don't deserve a medal.


Glad to see you admitting blatant favoritism for mega-corps. Sure you suck, but momma CCP will make people deal with you. And by deal with you, I mean do what you want, cause it's not like we can War Dec you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#508 - 2012-04-02 20:20:12 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:
Add the ability to hire NPC's as mercs.

If hired NPC mercs spawn when defending corp ship is attacked and aid the corp which hired them. Spawn size should be something which will even the balance, so if defender outguns the attacker no spawn occurs. If attacker outguns defender NPC spawns with ships to balance the odds.

If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

Cost to defend your corp should equal cost aggressor paid to war dec you.

There is absolutely no reason for NPCs to do what players can do themselves.
Gusto Gal
Doomheim
#509 - 2012-04-02 20:22:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gusto Gal wrote:
Add the ability to hire NPC's as mercs.

If hired NPC mercs spawn when defending corp ship is attacked and aid the corp which hired them. Spawn size should be something which will even the balance, so if defender outguns the attacker no spawn occurs. If attacker outguns defender NPC spawns with ships to balance the odds.

If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR.

Cost to defend your corp should equal cost aggressor paid to war dec you.

There is absolutely no reason for NPCs to do what players can do themselves.



That is true for an established corp say 2 months old. But a new startup corp can be in serious trouble.
Raneru
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#510 - 2012-04-02 23:47:58 UTC
From what has been said about the proposed mechanics there doesn't seem to be anything stopping a huge alliance taking free ally contracts from anyone at war who doesnt want to/is too scared to fight. A sort of reverse Privateers. Imagine the sheer number of targets Twisted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#511 - 2012-04-03 07:36:48 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:
That is true for an established corp say 2 months old. But a new startup corp can be in serious trouble.
The age of the corp doesn't particularly matter — it's the members that count. If they're too new and unestablished to take care of the problem, they're too new to have a corp to begin with.
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2012-04-03 07:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nohb Oddy
Gusto Gal wrote:
... but there needs to be something to allow PVE corps to sting back in an equal painful way.


It is called either not sucking and learning to adapt or die. Or ... hire an ally using the new ally system to do the fighting for you.

Nohb Oddy likes you.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#513 - 2012-04-03 10:11:30 UTC
Gusto Gal wrote:
Nohb Oddy wrote:

I wish there was a dislike button.

Why? If I wanted to shoot at NPCs I'd go run missions.


Well the indy corps don't like PVP, that makes it even. PVP corp forces an PVE corp into PVP. Now the PVE corp can force the PVP corp into PVE. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

EVE is a PVP game. What you're suggesting is equivalent to asking DICE to add mechanics to make sure that those that want to play BF3 as a racing game with the jeeps can't be attacked by the ones playing it to shoot at each other.
Bent Barrel
#514 - 2012-04-03 11:22:48 UTC
I don't like the proposal.

1. Change the merc contract. Since we are tracking incurred loses, we can contract a merc corp to incurr a certain amount of ISK los on the aggressor and get some isk as the contract reward in return.

2. There is not clear defensive goal. In the current as well as the proposed system, the defending corporation has no incentive to fight. They can just wait out the war. There needs to be a condition to transfer control of the war from the aggresson to the defender so the defender has a goal and a means to end the war (incur a negative isk balance on the aggressor perhaps?).

will have to read through the entire thread when I have time ...
Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2012-04-03 11:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kmelx
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.


^^^This^^^

^^^Please implement this^^^

I'm sick of wardecs where mercs or griefdeccers can bring the activities of an entire alliance to a halt until they get bored with the war. A lot of the time they cannot even field a credible force, or they just camp trade hubs with their faction BS/T3s//remote sebos/slave set/legion links & neutral logi, never leaving the undock radius.

The defender should be able to regain the initiative from the attacker and bring the dec to an end, rather than sitting through decs where the attacker doesn't kill anyone, or dies repeatedly and loses large amounts of ISK yet keeps renewing the dec.
Kimo Khan
Rage Against All Reds
GunFam
#516 - 2012-04-03 13:19:12 UTC
Kmelx wrote:
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.


^^^This^^^

^^^Please implement this^^^

I'm sick of wardecs where mercs or griefdeccers can bring the activities of an entire alliance to a halt until they get bored with the war. A lot of the time they cannot even field a credible force, or they just camp trade hubs with their faction BS/T3s//remote sebos/slave set/legion links & neutral logi, never leaving the undock radius.

The defender should be able to regain the initiative from the attacker and bring the dec to an end, rather than sitting through decs where the attacker doesn't kill anyone, or dies repeatedly and loses large amounts of ISK yet keeps renewing the dec.


I like this one. Wars as desired, but to keep going you have to actually do something other than station hug.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#517 - 2012-04-03 13:49:55 UTC
previous idea is crap

if i want to war dec an alliance into station i should be able to

the cost to wardec already skyrocketted

dont penalise the attacker if the defending corp decides not to undock for a week

when CCP says 'the defending corp takes control of the war' they mean you actually have to undock and shoot things and/or hire mercs/allies. The attacking corp is then locked into the war till the weekly timer is up.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#518 - 2012-04-03 16:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
The more I think about this the madder I get. It's just so stupid. As an example I just went through this headache last month with a small 3 man corp, my 1 man corp was going to dec, and before crybabies come in, they started it! No really, dude stole my plex loot, which is fine (20% shields, full room ago on me, wasn't going to shoot and give him a free BC kill too), that's a legitimate game mechanic not crying about that, good on him. But after that he went and hid in the station for the duration of his 15min flag to me, so I decided to use a game mechanic myself and war dec him. That kinda seems the perfect situation CCP would want a war dec system to be used for, right?

Now while I was waiting out the voting period they joined a 30 man alliance and that suddenly raised the cost for me to 50mil to dec the whole alliance. Now here's the thing... I was still up for it. They seemed industrial based, but many had killboard kills and seemed somewhat PVP competent, thus looked like it could be fun! But after some recon, and some RL stuff, 50 mil for the chance to station camp the few guys in my TZ for two nights a week seemed a waste so I thought I would wait until the new system came out. Yet with this new system, that gets even worse. It would now cost me 65mil to dec these guys. Yet if the situation was reversed, and the 30 man corp wanted to grief me it would only cost them 50.5mil? That is just bull#$@% and you know it!!!!!

And why all this bull#$@% for me to war dec? Why would this potentially great Eve story of one guy fighting back not make it into the sandbox? So Eve Uni can get special treatment and have a game mechanic written to protect them from those war dec'ing little guys, while at the same time making sure they (and any large alliance) can war dec those same people cheaply? I guess thats what they think we should get for not playing the game the way Eve Uni thinks we should be playing it though?!
Nemesis44
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#519 - 2012-04-03 17:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesis44
Coming from a small/midsize carebear corp, I don't get why CCP would want to make it easier for griefers to harass corps that can't defend themselves. We get dec'd, and it basically means that us newbs have to dock up for a week, which is a pretty big turn off for new players.

I suggest that the defending corp should be able to pay CONCORD to get out of a war dec (pay CONCORD, not the attacking corp, as that just leads to people war decking just to get a pay off).

It makes sense to me that if you can pay CONCORD to get into a war that one side didn't want, you should be able to pay to get out of a war that only one side does want. I'm not sure if this is what your "surrender" mechanic is, but I think it should work something like this (tho it isn't really surrender so much as a negotiation process with CONCORD). I know you PvP'ers hate carebears for some reason, but building PvP skills takes time and money that most new players don't have, and getting dec'd for no reason and having to dock your ship for a week + turns a lot of new players away form the game.

Aside from that, the revamped kill mails look pretty damn sweet. I hope I'm not the focus of too many of them :P
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2012-04-03 19:01:35 UTC
The cost aspect as being proposed appears to give an unfair financial advantage to a Large corp aggressing a smaller corp, by their very nature most normal small corps have fewer resources financially than the larger ones, it seems to me this needs careful balancing, or you are deliberately loading game in favour of the big guys yet again.