These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
pashared
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2012-04-13 16:51:34 UTC
pashared wrote:
ccp is fixing the wrong problem. the war dec system is fine, its the premise in which a war is to be fought and declared.


the real question is "WHY DECLARE WAR"

if its just for pvp targets and to fluff KB's then no matter how you configure you war mechanics it will never work.


you have to write the war game from the ground up.

perhaps corperation is the wrong term all together maybe what we have here in eve is more like feudal japan, in which case you can just decide to want to declare war simply because you dont like them. and once a surrender is issued the name of the group is gone forever.

and that in itsself would drive war, removing "corp" names from game. now we have a foundation to declare war in all secs of space none the less.

in the end I think all players want soild drivers and consequences in which war is rooted. once that is writen then we can have solid war mechanics that work.


cause what we have now is a rocking chair, sure you have something to do but it doesnt get you anywhere.



id like to add to my idea:

how about a KB for corp names:

if you win a war the name of the corp is removed from game and that name and stats of the war are processed like a KM and added to your player/corp data.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#682 - 2012-04-13 17:16:05 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Wardecs need conditons or targets so there can be things to fight over.


this and thrice this.

Basic problem: in HS isk faucets are unlimited, consequently there is no legitimate reason for war and no legitimate reason for war to end.

For every ISK faucet there should be a limitation on that resource to provoke conflict (say the number of missions an agent will offer per day), for every limitation, there should be a war purpose ("Stop using agent X") and every non mutual war should be ended by the aggressor backing down or a treaty being signed ("We agree to not use agent X for 3 months").

People can avoid wars AND resource limitations by joining npc corps, but the rewards should be *much* lower.
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#683 - 2012-04-13 17:43:30 UTC
[quote=betoli][quote=Salpun]Wardecs need conditons or targets so there can be things to fight over.[/quote

this and thrice this.

Basic problem: in HS isk faucets are unlimited, consequently there is no legitimate reason for war and no legitimate reason for war to end.

For every ISK faucet there should be a limitation on that resource to provoke conflict (say the number of missions an agent will offer per day), for every limitation, there should be a war purpose ("Stop using agent X") and every non mutual war should be ended by the aggressor backing down or a treaty being signed ("We agree to not use agent X for 3 months")

People can avoid wars AND resource limitations by joining npc corps, but the rewards should be *much* lower

[/quote
this is an incorrect assumption the only on unlimited resource in the game are missions. Belts can be mined out, pos's take up space preventing other pos's to be placed there, as well as the number of incursion sights. these are all limited resources so I can and should be fought over . Being in a NPC corporation puts you in an environment in which you can access most of these resources under the full protection of concord.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#684 - 2012-04-13 17:43:41 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification.


I completely agree! Yet the proposed war dec system would treat them all as such. It would treat all large corps as the same, and all small ones as the same. The only variable being the size of the corp which is why I was viewing the subject through this lens.

CCP SoniClover wrote:

The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.


I don't think anyone is really asking for special protection for small corps or fair wars (O.k. a few are). Everyone is fine with larger entities having an advantage in resources, and manpower in game. That's why people form into larger groups to begin with and I wouldn't ever ask for that to be changed for some kind of "fairness". Not CCP's job.

But the proposed system went the other way with this it seemed. Sure if the price of a war is lets say…200mil, the larger corp has an easier time paying that because of having more resource than the smaller ones do and that's fine, not CCP's business. What is unsettling about the way the original idea was floated is that beyond a resource benefit, larger corps are getting a discount in price over the smaller ones for what would be the same war had the smaller party declared it. That really seems to be CCP putting it's finger on the scale for the larger guys.

CCP SoniClover wrote:

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



And I think that will alleviate some of the anger around here (some). I agree that no corp should be free from aggression. Yet under the original system proposed small corps where a much more viable target than larger ones due to the cost of declaring war on a larger corp being more expensive than a smaller one. This is another reason why it is viewed as "playing favoritism" with the larger corps over the smaller ones. As long as this is being addressed we may be getting somewhere.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#685 - 2012-04-13 18:30:30 UTC
Quote:
The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp.

More importantly, what incentive will there be for a corp that isn't a dedicated PvP corp to accept a war dec and not just hole up for a couple of weeks?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#686 - 2012-04-13 18:55:07 UTC
Kemal Ataturk wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
[quote=Manssell]

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



Thats absolutely not true you decided to get rid of small corps esspecialy industrial corps because if they get wardeced they have to leave their pos(es) behind and go to npc corps or to pay isk or to sit in station. And that many times one after the other. Thats all about it.



I am not sure how this is different than what happens now? Small corps already accept the risk of being decced and live through decs everyday, without help.

Now. With Inferno you can get help and griefers have to anticipate that. It is actually going to be more expensive to dec you. And I frankly think you underestimate the number of antipirate griefer haters with a space police complex who will be quite willing to lend you a hand, myself included.

Argus
Severian Carnifex
#687 - 2012-04-13 19:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Manssell wrote:
For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, but larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size, but the mechanic is at least fair)?

Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else, or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification. The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



Did you look at, or thought about kill board ISK difference between corps as base for calculating the price?
It was brought up in this thread few times and I wrote a larger post about how it could be done.

In short:
So that corp with members that have expensive KB (dealt great ISK damage) when attacking corp whose players dont have or have poor KB, must pay much more ISK then other way around
and when corps with similar KB attacking each other they pay normal middle price

This way you protect non PVP players form griefing but they can still be attacked if attacker really wants it.
And you encourage that PVP corps war dec other PVP corps with smaller cost.

i found last place where it was mentioned and my post quoted:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1099743#post1099743
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#688 - 2012-04-13 19:49:22 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Manssell wrote:
For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, but larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size, but the mechanic is at least fair)?

Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else, or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification. The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



Did you look at, or thought about kill board ISK difference between corps as base for calculating the price?
It was brought up in this thread few times and I wrote a larger post about how it could be done.

In short:
So that corp with members that have expensive KB (dealt great ISK damage) when attacking corp whose players dont have or have poor KB, must pay much more ISK then other way around
and when corps with similar KB attacking each other they pay normal middle price

This way you protect non PVP players form griefing but they can still be attacked if attacker really wants it.
And you encourage that PVP corps war dec other PVP corps with smaller cost.

i found last place where it was mentioned and my post quoted:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1099743#post1099743


That's the most sensible idea forwarded in this thread. Lesser risk = lesser reward through increased cost.

Also, anyone being HARASSED by the rules should be offered a way out by the rules. FAI, limit wardecs to once a year plus one for each war being declared.


Anyway, as this system is set to go in live a couple weeks, i wouldn't count on it being modified in any worthy way. Unless the code allows for differential pricing, smallholders are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
bornaa
GRiD.
#689 - 2012-04-13 20:00:59 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
Severian Carnifex wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Manssell wrote:
For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, but larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size, but the mechanic is at least fair)?

Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else, or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification. The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.



Did you look at, or thought about kill board ISK difference between corps as base for calculating the price?
It was brought up in this thread few times and I wrote a larger post about how it could be done.

In short:
So that corp with members that have expensive KB (dealt great ISK damage) when attacking corp whose players dont have or have poor KB, must pay much more ISK then other way around
and when corps with similar KB attacking each other they pay normal middle price

This way you protect non PVP players form griefing but they can still be attacked if attacker really wants it.
And you encourage that PVP corps war dec other PVP corps with smaller cost.

i found last place where it was mentioned and my post quoted:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1099743#post1099743


ShockedShockedShocked
I see my post behind this... Big smile
Idea that i stole from some guy from article comments. P

Thank you for working on and updating my idea.
well done... Big smile

And i think that its only idea that would work here.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#690 - 2012-04-13 20:13:37 UTC
Killboard related pricing are even less sanboxy and even more anti-PVP than the proposed cost scaling system.
Alain Badiou
Combine Honnete 0ber Advancer Mercantiles
#691 - 2012-04-13 20:15:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Alain Badiou
Torothanax wrote:
Would it be possible to make anyone remote repairing a war target a legal target in the war themselves? Say for a week. Could this work kind of like kill rights?

It's rather lame that people can sit around with alts that are perfectly safe, but have the ability to swing battles in their favor, and then be scott free again in 15 minutes.


Also of note, neut remote repping absolutely needs to be fixed (and by fixed I mean either a criminal flag or aggression timer or as Torathanax states becomes a war target for a week or something - I rather like the last one). Neut remote repping and hi-sec wars is a seriously broken mechanic.

edit - btw and slightly off-topic, but can someone post a link to the crimestop or crimewatch posts? Can't seem to find with search
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#692 - 2012-04-13 20:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: roboto212
a solution for the defender would be surrender terms are preset to an ISk amount the can either be paid or destroyed by the defender which would end the war. to prevent excessive isk amounts require aggressor to post an escrow ok the amount being requested for surrender which they wouldn't pay if they surrendered.
To people talking about neutral remote repairing it's already being handled by crime watch in inferno by giving a global flag and aggression timer .
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2012-04-13 20:30:29 UTC
roboto212 wrote:

this is an incorrect assumption the only on unlimited resource in the game are missions. Belts can be mined out, pos's take up space preventing other pos's to be placed there, as well as the number of incursion sights. these are all limited resources so I can and should be fought over . Being in a NPC corporation puts you in an environment in which you can access most of these resources under the full protection of concord.


Its not an assumption, the resources are so abundant compared to demand, that they are defacto unlimited. Seriously have you ever not been able to mine in high sec because someone ate all the roids in the constellation?
roboto212
EVE University
Ivy League
#694 - 2012-04-13 20:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: roboto212
betoli wrote:
roboto212 wrote:

this is an incorrect assumption the only on unlimited resource in the game are missions. Belts can be mined out, pos's take up space preventing other pos's to be placed there, as well as the number of incursion sights. these are all limited resources so I can and should be fought over . Being in a NPC corporation puts you in an environment in which you can access most of these resources under the full protection of concord.


Its not an assumption, the resources are so abundant compared to demand, that they are defacto unlimited. Seriously have you ever not been able to mine in high sec because someone ate all the roids in the constellation?


Actually yes . Some euro corp ate all 3 belts in a system my friend had made his home system and left him with nothing to mine. So while belts may be plentiful they are not unlimited. The fact there may be 20 belts full one system over does not mean there unlimited just abundant. My friend liked his system so me and some friends used the war Dec system to convince the euro corp to move to a different system so my friend could mine in the system he chose. That matters not that there were far more roids one jump over.

It like saying pos's near jita have no additional value because you can set up a pos 5 more systems over. You sound like the people who say the ship was free because you mined the minerals your self.
gfldex
#695 - 2012-04-13 21:37:28 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
[quote=Manssell]So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.


Don't worry mate. The Sniper will be right in the end. If you force players to farm incursions for two weeks to go on war with a big alliance, they will do so. They might be a bit angry at the *beep* *beep* *beep* who came up with that idea, but in the end ships will explode.

Balancing over price didn't work with ships (lolPLEXTitans) and it wont work with wars either. Privateer will be back in business and kicking harder then they ever did.

I doubt anybody will be able to talk you out of big bills for big corps. For the aftermath please keep the following in mind. Did you ever hear somebody say: "This is an awesome compromise, anybody loves it!" ? I don't. I further don't believe that compromises make good game design. And an ISK sink that forces players to farm is missing the point. Removing ISK from the game that would not have been there in the first place is ridiculous.

You wont encourage players to form bigger corps either because bad CEOs will still be bad CEO. There are simply not enough highsec PvPers to force them all out of business. Using that as an excuse to follow the advice of the CSM (lolblobs) is not going to help you. You are accused of favourism already and you didn't even do anything yet. The, well lets call them media, will be all over it - and you will still not achieve what you intend to do.

Big targets are easy to hit. No matter how pricy you make it to go after them. All you get is angry customers if you follow that road. At the other hand you are going to get angry customers anyway when wars work again. You are lost, good luck to you.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Loridia Jade
Ghost Operations Tactical Unit
#696 - 2012-04-13 23:14:50 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Thanks SC. Sometimes it just helps to know things are not set in stone and we are being heard Not to mention the eerie fact that I apparently summoned you forth with post number 666.
Argus

Nothing ever happens by accident. Shocked

Manssell wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Hey guys, just wanted to pop my head in very quickly to say that we are monitoring this (and other threads). The only reason why I haven't replied regarding the war cost formula is simply that it isn't ready yet. We have it slated to be worked on this sprint (sometimes during the next two weeks), so I will let you guys know as soon as we have it nailed down.

Thank you for your reply but if I may while you post may alleviate some concerns, I'm a bit cynical and read way too much marketing speak as is, so forgive me, but this sounds a lot like "we are going to do what we want regardless of your concerns, then tell you what we've done when we have it done it". I think what the players are looking for is a bit more interaction with their concerns, kinda like grayscale is doing to the Titan thread.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
As I've stated before, with a generic system like we have regarding player corps and wars, it is inevitable that whatever change we make will always upset some players, one way or another. Our aim is to find something that provides the greatest good to the greatest number, paraphrasing Jeremy Bentham.


This also sounds like vague dev speak for "We are moving ahead with our plans to make it easier for large Corps to Dec small Corps, and harder for small Corps to Dec bigger Corps because there are more people in the bigger Corp." And that will get the mob up again. It would be nice if perhaps you could give us some idea of the basic principles you are using for the re-design For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, but larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size, but the mechanic is at least fair) Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else, or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?


I think you're dead on with this break down of SoniClover's words. THIS THREAD is here to Discuss the Topic, INCLUDING the Devs! Only popping cause to say a brief "hello, We're working on it" statement after 30+ pages of discussion shows a real lack of respect to the community of Eve. And as noted Before, The CSM DO NOT represent the EVE player base. In Fact the way the CSM is inducted is Crap in the first place as they are mainly represented by the LARGER Corps/ALLIANCES in game because they already have the most pull within their own corps and Alliances... DUH. At any rate, since that's a whole other thread... the point is, OF Course the CSM wants the COST HIKE, the Free DECSHIELD.

I certainly hope, as do everyone in Hi-sec, that you are listening to the actual Inhabitants of Hi-Sec. You say your interest is with the Majority of the Players... Well that better Mean the Majority of the Players in HI-SEC! Not the Alts of Null Sec 0.0 Alliances either. Soni... The Fairness of War is at stake... We know you can't please everyone, it's impossible, but for your sake and that of your team... as we have a very vocal community... If BS is passed, you won't be able to shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, this is what we felt was in the best interest of the Eve player base," if it's obvious that it creates a shield for Alliances and Massive Corps. You will All be branded in a Very Bad light... that's just fact, and no amount of what you believe is Valid will ever justify that Corrupt Cost scaling.

I'm not even that vested in Wars atm, but I'm shocked at what was presented and there's Way too many Good posts in here for a better Idea on how Wars should work. The freedom of Warring anyone in a cost effective manner, the Commitment to see it through, and having a solid goal for both sides to have in order to Control the dictation of the War must be your drive and is what I have gathered in reading these posts. Show us Soni! Feed us your thoughts.... don't be so Guarded! You're creating a System For US! I would bet that I have read more of this Forum than you have! This Thread, should be your morning Paper... Your Notepad should be filled, Nay, OVERFLOWING with pages of Ideas From this thread, and then going over them with your Team... Break them down, brainstorm! Share your thoughts! Be ONE with US! Make us Believe that you are without a doubt, On OUR SIDE! We can't expect perfection... but we should be able to expect your commitment to hearing, listening and milling over the ideas of your clients.

Good Day Sir,

Loridia

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Show with the Hand, Deliver with the Mouth, Steal with the Eyes; Tempt fate not, for therein lay a dark surprise.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#697 - 2012-04-14 07:22:55 UTC
Loridia Jade wrote:
Argus Sorn wrote:
Thanks SC. Sometimes it just helps to know things are not set in stone and we are being heard Not to mention the eerie fact that I apparently summoned you forth with post number 666.
Argus

Nothing ever happens by accident. Shocked

Manssell wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Hey guys, just wanted to pop my head in very quickly to say that we are monitoring this (and other threads). The only reason why I haven't replied regarding the war cost formula is simply that it isn't ready yet. We have it slated to be worked on this sprint (sometimes during the next two weeks), so I will let you guys know as soon as we have it nailed down.

Thank you for your reply but if I may while you post may alleviate some concerns, I'm a bit cynical and read way too much marketing speak as is, so forgive me, but this sounds a lot like "we are going to do what we want regardless of your concerns, then tell you what we've done when we have it done it". I think what the players are looking for is a bit more interaction with their concerns, kinda like grayscale is doing to the Titan thread.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
As I've stated before, with a generic system like we have regarding player corps and wars, it is inevitable that whatever change we make will always upset some players, one way or another. Our aim is to find something that provides the greatest good to the greatest number, paraphrasing Jeremy Bentham.


This also sounds like vague dev speak for "We are moving ahead with our plans to make it easier for large Corps to Dec small Corps, and harder for small Corps to Dec bigger Corps because there are more people in the bigger Corp." And that will get the mob up again. It would be nice if perhaps you could give us some idea of the basic principles you are using for the re-design For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, but larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size, but the mechanic is at least fair) Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else, or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?


I think you're dead on with this break down of SoniClover's words. THIS THREAD is here to Discuss the Topic, INCLUDING the Devs! Only popping cause to say a brief "hello, We're working on it" statement after 30+ pages of discussion shows a real lack of respect to the community of Eve. And as noted Before, The CSM DO NOT represent the EVE player base. In Fact the way the CSM is inducted is Crap in the first place as they are mainly represented by the LARGER Corps/ALLIANCES in game because they already have the most pull within their own corps and Alliances... DUH. At any rate, since that's a whole other thread... the point is, OF Course the CSM wants the COST HIKE, the Free DECSHIELD.

I certainly hope, as do everyone in Hi-sec, that you are listening to the actual Inhabitants of Hi-Sec. You say your interest is with the Majority of the Players... Well that better Mean the Majority of the Players in HI-SEC! Not the Alts of Null Sec 0.0 Alliances either. Soni... The Fairness of War is at stake... We know you can't please everyone, it's impossible, but for your sake and that of your team... as we have a very vocal community... If BS is passed, you won't be able to shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, this is what we felt was in the best interest of the Eve player base," if it's obvious that it creates a shield for Alliances and Massive Corps. You will All be branded in a Very Bad light... that's just fact, and no amount of what you believe is Valid will ever justify that Corrupt Cost scaling.

I'm not even that vested in Wars atm, but I'm shocked at what was presented and there's Way too many Good posts in here for a better Idea on how Wars should work. The freedom of Warring anyone in a cost effective manner, the Commitment to see it through, and having a solid goal for both sides to have in order to Control the dictation of the War must be your drive and is what I have gathered in reading these posts. Show us Soni! Feed us your thoughts.... don't be so Guarded! You're creating a System For US! I would bet that I have read more of this Forum than you have! This Thread, should be your morning Paper... Your Notepad should be filled, Nay, OVERFLOWING with pages of Ideas From this thread, and then going over them with your Team... Break them down, brainstorm! Share your thoughts! Be ONE with US! Make us Believe that you are without a doubt, On OUR SIDE! We can't expect perfection... but we should be able to expect your commitment to hearing, listening and milling over the ideas of your clients.

Good Day Sir,

Loridia


Two weeks to release + all code written = no serious changes to mechanics.

If the code can't tell wether a corp is big or small and put a price tag accordingly, it won't learn in a couple weeks. There's no matherial time to do a differential cost scheme unless it already was conceived. And then, if the system had included differential pricing from the first "hi guys" from CCP SoniClover, then the outrage wouldn't have been.

So the ugly truth is that CCP spoiled it big time and now it's too late to change course and avoid the disaster.

They should really had put this forward before any coding. Telling us that now Goons' wardec shield may be 3 billion instead of 4 won't cut it. Roll
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#698 - 2012-04-14 08:17:44 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
The only reason why I haven't replied regarding the war cost formula is simply that it isn't ready yet. We have it slated to be worked on this sprint (sometimes during the next two weeks), so I will let you guys know as soon as we have it nailed down. There are many valid concerns in this thread that will be taken into account, but I don't want to go into too much details right now - discussing unfinished systems is always risky, as this thread clearly shows, so please show a bit of patience for a little while longer.

There are other changes and tweaks in the pipelines, which I will also inform you about when they are ready.

There is nothing wrong with discussing unfinished systems, as long as you always clarify that you are discussing a "work in progress", and as long as you actually engage in the discussion - regularly.

There is, however, a lot wrong with announcing controversial changes and then seemingly ignoring the discussion thread for weeks. Even if you are busy, you could have spent the 5 minutes required to write/post this "thanks for the feedback, we're working on it" message well over a week ago.

Keep in mind, too, that there is absolutely no way for players to know that you, or the other devs, are actually reading the forum posts, unless you do respond.

That said, there is also no logical reason to wait until you've got everything "nailed down" before you put forth your modified war cost formula and other "changes and tweaks". You might just need to pry up those nails again, and finalizing a possibly flawed system is a waste of time. You'd do much better to get feedback from the player base sooner rather than later, so that you'll have more time for fixes, if someone just happens to point out a new flaw or exploit.

But, if you are reluctant to go this far in a public discussion, then consider asking one or more of the CSM members to take a look at the concerns raised in this forum thread, and then to look over your revised plan. They signed an NDA, so you can tell them not to discuss the details in public. At the very least, you'll be able to say that you did run the revised plan by the CSM for further review and feedback; and, at best, they might see something which you and the other devs might have missed, or failed to consider, which, in turn, may prevent yet another player blow-up and PR nightmare.
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#699 - 2012-04-14 08:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Amun Khonsu
CCP SoniClover wrote:


Not all the small corps are the same and not all large corps are the same, so arguing one vs. the other is gross simplification. The key thing to look at is the incentives people have to go to war with any given corp. These incentives should be balanced (and yes, the current implementation does a bad job at this, which is why we're looking into this). But fairness is not something we can ensure, anymore than we can ensure that fleet fights are fair. So we can try to make the incentives balanced, but we are never going to ensure wars are fair, it just goes completely against the nature of sandbox.

So, small player corporations should absolutely be able to exist and thrive, nobody wants to get rid of them. However, these small corporations can never be completely safe from aggression (but they shouldn't necessarily be a more viable target than larger corps). That's the goal we want to achieve.


I'll preface this by saying, I am a combat pilot, not a carebear. However I have to say this.

In this game no one needs incentive to go to war.. High sec is full of them. In low sec they don't even declare war..they just shoot. Maybe focusing on low sec incentive to declare war instead of allowing it to be treated like its null sec. Just a side thought.

What they need is a better mechanic. You guys are doing well to address it. However, you can't make it griefer paradise. Ppl need to be responsible for their actions. If they declare war, the defender must have a mechanism to eventually get out of the war.. Ie never ending is silly.

First the war needs to be able to be turned back on the aggressor and the defender if successful needs to have the option to put the aggressor into an unwanted war for a period of time... Free counter dec perhaps. Second, wars must have an end and not be never ending at the behest of the aggressor. Third, corps or alliances should not be able to be ransomed over and over when the aggressor sees they can re- dec every 7 days demanding a new isk value to end the war.

The current proposed system is no doubt due to a heavy pirate contingent on the csm board. Less industrialism in eve means higher prices and more plex purchasing. Seems the real reason for ccp stating this is the 'line in the sand' they are drawing.

PVP game or not, the game is billed as a game where you can be a combat pilot, pirate, merc, trader or industrialist. This proposed system singlehandedly wipes out industrialism in eve as it leaves them hostage to the pvpr, esp if they are a small corp or alliance and cannot afford mercs. Even if they can afford mercs they have to stay docked, not playing the game.

Small corps will not survive. Ppl on the csm will.... *cough*goons...griefers

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#700 - 2012-04-14 08:41:36 UTC
Amun Khonsu wrote:

PVP game or not, the game is billed as a game where you can be a combat pilot, pirate, merc, trader or industrialist. This proposed system singlehandedly wipes out industrialism in eve as it leaves them hostage to the pvpr, esp if they are a small corp or alliance and cannot afford mercs. Even if they can afford mercs they have to stay docked, not playing the game.


That's like saying PvPers are hostage to Industrialists because without buying what they produce they can't PvP.

You can't divide things like that in a game like this, everything is interconnected and ought to be. I'm sorry but your comments are just ignorant.

Also irrespective of what people call themselves you can't really be either a Pirate or a Merc atm, I very much doubt there are many players that truly sustain themselves exclusively from either.