These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: War, Modules & Super Friends

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2012-05-17 05:02:48 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:

I understand your concerns but this is only the first step in the war iteration process. Highsec wars suck for many reasons. Dec Shields, corp hopping and self declared wars are one of the reasons they suck which CCP is fixing in this expansion. Next they're looking at other factors that make it suck like Neutral Remote Reps. It's part of an ongoing change and to be honest I'd rather pay 50m for a war that will last one week than 2m for a war that will end in 24h because the target keeps hopping alliances.

Spoiler alert: they aren't fixing corp hopping (they ARE fixing decshields/alliance hopping).
Dread Nanana
Doomheim
#342 - 2012-05-17 06:49:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dread Nanana
Eternal Error wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:

I understand your concerns but this is only the first step in the war iteration process. Highsec wars suck for many reasons. Dec Shields, corp hopping and self declared wars are one of the reasons they suck which CCP is fixing in this expansion. Next they're looking at other factors that make it suck like Neutral Remote Reps. It's part of an ongoing change and to be honest I'd rather pay 50m for a war that will last one week than 2m for a war that will end in 24h because the target keeps hopping alliances.

Spoiler alert: they aren't fixing corp hopping (they ARE fixing decshields/alliance hopping).


And they are introducing a new dec shield - alt stuffing.

Current wars in high sec are still extremely easy to side step. You see your war targets in local! There is no surprises, conflict rarely occurs. You are more likely to get ganked hauling 50m worth of T2 mods out-of-war than shot by a war target!

As it was said by Captain Thunk from PL, the most active wars occurred in early days of EVE, prior to 2007 or 2006. That was before my time, but I remember stories where there was lots of talk about being always war deced and always having to scout for potential war targets, etc. Today, wars are basically non-existent. To fix wars,

1. CCP should have made costs of war decing cheaper for small corps to war dec larger entities. War fees should not be based on "fees for targets", but fee based on target's ability to defend itself.

2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)

The second part is very important for 0.0, low sec and high sec wars. All local is used for today is intel and intel only. Compact listing made it even easier... Leaving local intact, but simply removing all standing would require players to be both, more active regarding others in local and maybe allow people to use local for what it was intended in first place? Chatting?? And no, jita contract spam and TEST's ASCII penises are not exactly what I have in mind here.


Finally, war is player content in eve. Next expansion will diminish it and isolate it to FW and mutual wars like Red v. Blue. It is WOW-ification of Eve. Sad
Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#343 - 2012-05-17 10:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Sister Bliss
X Forum ate my post, cba to re-type; in summary:

While a revised/polished war mechanism is a valid goal, CCP would do better to invest the time and budget into encouraging conflict and war in the first place. Currently there is little reason to declare a war aside from spite or a desperate attempt to create content.

A slick model and interface for managing war is going to have zero impact unless there are significant drivers for generating conflict and consequences for the success/failure of those actions.

Give us a model which we can play with and tools for that model. Not tools for a model which is broken.
Dun Bar
Baba Yagas
The Initiative.
#344 - 2012-05-17 14:04:11 UTC
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?
Carton Mantory
Vindicate and Deliverance
#345 - 2012-05-17 14:07:49 UTC
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?



Where you see that?
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#346 - 2012-05-17 14:15:14 UTC
Carton Mantory wrote:
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?



Where you see that?


Im pretty sure this was announced even before the 'Escalation' patch.

Also the sparseness of CCP response in this thread is rather telling.

Any news on the Spool-up warp jump drive thingys?

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#347 - 2012-05-17 14:22:41 UTC
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?

Neutral RR is not any more difficult to counter than non-neutral RR. If you think neutral RR makes fighting impossible you're going to have just as much difficulty dealing with logistics after crimewatch changes.
Dun Bar
Baba Yagas
The Initiative.
#348 - 2012-05-17 14:38:00 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
Carton Mantory wrote:
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?



Where you see that?


Im pretty sure this was announced even before the 'Escalation' patch.

Also the sparseness of CCP response in this thread is rather telling.

Any news on the Spool-up warp jump drive thingys?



Ya same post I found that out stated no spool up drive nor the salvage drone be ready.
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#349 - 2012-05-17 16:21:04 UTC
Rushdyn Afasi wrote:

I do however absolutely agree with the majority of posters of this thread, that the escalation cost formula should be revised.
The next time the Goons want to burn Jita, it would be more epic if hisec corps don't have to go bankrupt to afford a wardec and organize a defensive effort.

Thanks everyone, and good luck to Inferno! Smile

P.S.: I apologize if I misquoted or misunderstood the comments form other players. Let me know if I did.

I agree, with how much fun everyone had during Burn/Save Jita it would be great to see something like that again. Sadly, under the new mechanics its still going to cost so much to war dec Goons (over 500m ISK), that I don't think many groups will bother.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#350 - 2012-05-17 16:26:34 UTC
As long as goons are at war with someone its actually cheaper now. As long as the corp goons are attacking asks for allies for a very cheap price any one can join in and help defend. Goons will have to be very carefull with their wardecs or all high sec corps that want to help defend will be able to join in the fun for close to free.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Captain Thunk
Explode. Now. Please.
Alliance. Now. Please.
#351 - 2012-05-17 16:32:44 UTC
Salpun wrote:
As long as goons are at war with someone its actually cheaper now. As long as the corp goons are attacking asks for allies for a very cheap price any one can join in and help defend. Goons will have to be very carefull with their wardecs or all high sec corps that want to help defend will be able to join in the fun for close to free.


The details have yet to be published in the forthcoming Mercenary Marketplace blog, but it's a reasonable assumption that in future declaring war on someone will be nothing more than inviting all corps in the game that wish to participate in high sec wars to fight you. I don't think it'll be very long until the panel will show that there are no active wars in progress in New Eden.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#352 - 2012-05-17 16:36:23 UTC
Captain Thunk wrote:
Salpun wrote:
As long as goons are at war with someone its actually cheaper now. As long as the corp goons are attacking asks for allies for a very cheap price any one can join in and help defend. Goons will have to be very carefull with their wardecs or all high sec corps that want to help defend will be able to join in the fun for close to free.


The details have yet to be published in the forthcoming Mercenary Marketplace blog, but it's a reasonable assumption that in future declaring war on someone will be nothing more than inviting all corps in the game that wish to participate in high sec wars to fight you. I don't think it'll be very long until the panel will show that there are no active wars in progress in New Eden.


I think it wont work long like i posted above Oops It will be come an auction system and people will have to fight to the bottom in price if they want to be the ally chosen. It will be a interesting couple of monthsTwisted

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#353 - 2012-05-17 16:38:35 UTC
Dread Nanana wrote:

2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)


Do you understand why standings were added to local?

Because players were already distributing custom "packs" of pilot's avatar pictures, done up with manual standings markers on them and installing them into their cache folders. Needless to say, this gave an unfair advantage to those who were willing to do this and risk CCP's wrath.

So, no, standings are not likely to be removed from local. Not unless CCP majorly changes how pilot portraits are stored in the client or doesn't rely on caching the pilot images. (Which would cause them to be downloaded from the server again for every new play session.)
Captain Thunk
Explode. Now. Please.
Alliance. Now. Please.
#354 - 2012-05-17 16:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Thunk
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Dread Nanana wrote:

2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)


Do you understand why standings were added to local?

Because players were already distributing custom "packs" of pilot's avatar pictures, done up with manual standings markers on them and installing them into their cache folders. Needless to say, this gave an unfair advantage to those who were willing to do this and risk CCP's wrath.

So, no, standings are not likely to be removed from local. Not unless CCP majorly changes how pilot portraits are stored in the client or doesn't rely on caching the pilot images. (Which would cause them to be downloaded from the server again for every new play session.)


Simple solution is to enforce compact mode for local channel when not in Null or low sec, if the character is at war. (no portraits)
I'd wager that the majority of active players already have compact mode on.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#355 - 2012-05-17 18:20:30 UTC
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?


Here's how to eliminate neutral RR's effects now: Stop fighting on Station. If you're away from a station, you can tackle and kill the neutral RR.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#356 - 2012-05-17 18:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
RubyPorto wrote:
Dun Bar wrote:
Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?


Here's how to eliminate neutral RR's effects now: Stop fighting on Station. If you're away from a station, you can tackle and kill the neutral RR.

It's pretty well documented that the people who whine about neutral logistics being unbeatable are people who have no capacity to counter logistics of any kind anyway and are looking for an excuse for why they lost a fight. "they had neutral logistics, that's why we lost" as if it would somehow magically have been different if the logistics pilots were in corp.

They are the same people who whine about station games and then try and station camp their war targets or have their fleet sit on the undock of their home station waiting for war targets to come and engage them.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#357 - 2012-05-17 18:52:11 UTC
"1. CCP should have made costs of war decing cheaper for small corps to war dec larger entities. War fees should not be based on "fees for targets", but fee based on target's ability to defend itself."

Some have the odd idea that larger alliances are more capable of defending themselves. This is in many cases not true. Its much easier to keep everyone safe if "everyone" consists of 5 players, than it is if its 500 players. With a large alliance chances are there will be a few out there doing silly things making targets of themselves. You want targets, right? Pay for it.

"2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)."

All that does is make busy work for players. They got to have excel open with a list of war targets and be comparing it to local over and over, then going and updating their excel sheet as needed. CCP has stated many times that they do not want this to be a game of looking through tables of text, but one of making choices. Adding dozens of clicks to seeing who is a war target is not adding good game play.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#358 - 2012-05-17 19:07:21 UTC
Carton Mantory wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Carton Mantory wrote:
Thomas Kreshant wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Methinks the anti-blob module will need to be always on, which means your fleet will have "significantly" lower lock times which could put you at a disadvantage.



I thought I read on the test forums that the lock penalty is for fitting the module not for it being active, not tried it myself tho.

If was always on you would not be able to lock someone since it breaks your lock????

Bingo.

To be really clear: Fleet A members equip lock breakers in a mid-slot. Fleet B members equip a passive targeter in a mid-slot. Fleet A members won't know when to activate the lock breaker and will be suffering from lower scan res/lock times, giving Fleet B the advantage.



I would not think this mod as a fleet action. This is like fitting warp stabilizer on. It gives you 2 points and increases your lock time.

I would put this on a battlecruiser in a gate camp to clear damage to survive your aggression timer thru gate. This will make PVP much more fun.



I'm going to make it simple but just keep the lock breaker active?
-the penalty you have it once you fit the dam thing.
Even it it's happens only when you activate, chances are you loose your target too and chances are your opponent looses target on you, therefore force multipliers become equilibrated somehow.

Will this module bring a lot of annoyances or advantages? -well seems pretty much designed for numbers fights and specially used by command ships/HICS/logis (maybe if it's sensor linked by another ship)

I don't see any reason to not fit it on a HIC or Command ship from numbers starting at +5 (number speculation), it's a game changer for sure, at least for a few days/weeks since if you want to kill those you need few glass canons to take it out without breaking the lock witch means new roles in fleets that can't be filled by regular setups (because those are usually strong only in numbers)

brb
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2012-05-17 21:10:54 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
The Corp Hop Song

We’ve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first. Note that this rule only applies for non-mutual wars – mutual wars do not prohibit players from entering or leaving corporations. The main reason for this change is to combat the popular alt corp hopping (this doesn’t stop it completely, but limits it a lot).

Dear CCP Dev, please understand: the current, pre-inferno, wardec system is the result of nine years of quick patching ups, pretty much like this one. It only takes a couple dozen of this type of rules (arbitrary and non-trivial for newbies) to rob the system of its simplicity, so don't start already to clutter the system even before it is released.

If you want to prevent a certain behavior, then solve it and solve it properly, not with just a half heated solution. If eve players find a work around a certain system restriction, they will use it. Period.

The result is that the above rule aggregate nothing to the wardec system except complexity.

Instead, make the war follow players leaving the corporation until that war ends or up to a week, whichever comes first. That's a much more robust solution.

It is easy to implement too:
- When a player leaves a corporation during war, flag said player with a seven days time-stamp.
- If a player has no active timestamp, then he is into wars of only his current corp, otherwise he is also into any active wars of corporations he left in the last seven days.

The result is that it makes no difference if players go corp hopping then.

:sand:  over  :awesome:
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#360 - 2012-05-17 21:59:59 UTC
Salpun wrote:
As long as goons are at war with someone its actually cheaper now. As long as the corp goons are attacking asks for allies for a very cheap price any one can join in and help defend. Goons will have to be very carefull with their wardecs or all high sec corps that want to help defend will be able to join in the fun for close to free.


Erroneous. Under the old mechanics Goonswarm would cost 500m for the 10th person to war dec them. Under the new mechanics it will cost over 500m for every single person who wants to war dec them regardless.

The moar you cry the less you pee