These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: With Friends Like These... - New Ally System

First post First post
Author
Shandir
EVE University
Ivy League
#61 - 2012-05-18 21:03:59 UTC
At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee.
This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.

You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.

Eg:

Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them.
Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit.
Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war.
Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1.
Corp 1 declares the war mutual.
Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt.
Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.

Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.

Just one possible infinite-war exploit.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2012-05-18 21:06:53 UTC
Please push for eve gate kill boards and war reports asap! : D

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2012-05-18 21:09:35 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Absolutely no gaping holes in this mechanic, no sir, it's totally ready for rollout.


The only "gaping holes" are put there on purpose you idiot. eve is a game where scamming and ******* with people is a feature. If you think the loopholes are an after thought, your kidding yourself.

They said it in the dev blog. The system has to be open to abuse so the players set the rules, not CCP.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-05-18 21:11:21 UTC
Looks like a good system, but seems rather inflexible, and doesn't really give the participants many options, si it really feels more like a feature than a tool. Blink

Two things might make this system better:

(1) Allow for variable-length alliance contracts. There should be an option to set whether the alliance will last one week, several weeks, or until the end of the war. That will give both sides more bargaining power. Mercenaries won't have to worry about being tied up a war they no longer want, and defenders won't have to worry about paying a huge sum up-front for services that may never be rendered.

(2) Allow for recurring weekly payments to complement the above system.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-05-18 21:12:31 UTC
Shandir wrote:
At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee.
This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.

You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.

Eg:

Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them.
Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit.
Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war.
Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1.
Corp 1 declares the war mutual.
Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt.
Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.

Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.

Just one possible infinite-war exploit.


I don't have a problem with infinite war exploites that encourge fighting, its the ones where they can get out of the fighting that erks me.

Still standing behind my charge 100-200mil to start a corp stance

I has all the eve inactivity

Shandir
EVE University
Ivy League
#66 - 2012-05-18 21:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
Karl Planck wrote:
Shandir wrote:
At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee.
This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.

You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.

Eg:

Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them.
Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit.
Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war.
Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1.
Corp 1 declares the war mutual.
Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt.
Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.

Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.

Just one possible infinite-war exploit.


I don't have a problem with infinite war exploites that encourge fighting, its the ones where they can get out of the fighting that erks me.

Still standing behind my charge 100-200mil to start a corp stance


Griefer tears are best tears?

But in a slightly less troll-y vein, the war system has flaws in both sides of the equation, I agree. It is, however, definitely more critical to fix the problems with the defender's side first. Until it is possible for a defender to win a war, wars will never be meaningful.

Atm, the one thing they are adding that will help this, is the mutual-lock on the attacker. If the defender is willing and able to do this, it might actually ruin the attacker's day. If the attacker is not just alts, or just as willing to corp hop as the defender when a proper fight is given.

Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off.
Prisoner 002929
Wulgun Wing
#67 - 2012-05-18 21:38:16 UTC
Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.

Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that.
JeanPant Man
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-05-18 21:41:53 UTC
Shandir wrote:
At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee.
This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.

You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.

Eg:

Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them.
Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit.
Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war.
Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1.
Corp 1 declares the war mutual.
Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt.
Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.

Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.

Just one possible infinite-war exploit.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the blog not say that by declaring the war neutral, all merc corps are kicked from the war?
LadyDream
Boobs Light Industries
#69 - 2012-05-18 21:56:22 UTC
Swords? I think we missing dragons, trolls and dwarves for the set.
JeanPant Man
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-05-18 21:58:25 UTC  |  Edited by: JeanPant Man
Prisoner 002929 wrote:
Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.

Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that.


I think you are looking at this incorrectly. Dont think of it as a game where they try to promote Wars, instead think of it as if it were real life. The goal is to stop corps from war declaring for the hell of it. Highsec wars will be more in line with nullsec in the sense that you cant just carelessly attack anyone without any risk of losing. If a nullsec alliance invades another groups space, the defending nullsec group will rally up all the help it can get! Why should highsec be any different?

So in the past where one corp would war dec 10 industrial corps for easy kills, in Inferno they will actually have to fight for those kills. Granted wars will become more rare as they are more risky, but I doubt wars will become a thing of the past. Corps will start wars because they might gain something of value (that is worth the risk), and not just for senseless fun.

If anything, CCP have made wars more realistic and in tune with human nature.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#71 - 2012-05-18 21:59:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Prisoner 002929 wrote:
Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.

Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that.

Doesn't even take a large alliance behind the ten-man alt corp, it could just be any old corp of good friends who like to make trouble. As soon as they get dec'd they invite every single Tom, **** Richard, and Harry who put up an ad to be your ally for free. Judging by some of the responses in this thread there's going to be a ton of corps and alliances doing exactly that.

I completely agree, wars are officially dead.

E: Really? I can't say D.ick as a name? WTF CCP?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Riffix
Synergistic Arbitrage
#72 - 2012-05-18 22:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Riffix
Honestly, I don't really see this as being that good or helpful until pretty much all the things you listed under "Future is Not a Dirty Word" get implemented.

For people to effectively be Mercs there contracts need to be finite with conclusive goals/conditions. Setting time limits for the duration of the contract is one, but another is conditions for payment. Right now the only condition is loosely that the war end. But there is nothing that enforces that. There is nothing to stop an "ally" from agreeing to help, taking the cash, and doing nothing. While I can acknowledge that it might not be EVE without the ability for this type of abuse, since there isn't really an official way to rate a corp/alliance or look up their combat history, the defender has no recourse. If they were looking for help with a defensive war in the first place, chances are they probably don't have the resources to hunt down someone who griefs them via this "help" system.

Also, why not have contracts that don't get paid to the incoming ally until they are completed. For example "get aggressor to retract war" or "cause x amout of ISK damage to agressor" or "destroy x number of ships". Even more sexy would be a renewable contract that basically allows the ally to get paid for every week that they fulfill the specified goal. Maybe something other than ISK could be offered as rewards, or bonus rewards, tiers of payments. There is still a possibility for 2 corps to collude on this but if the person setting the contract prices it right, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Lead, Follow, or Get the #@$!@ Out of the Way.

Eternal Error
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-05-18 22:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
JeanPant Man wrote:
Prisoner 002929 wrote:
Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.

Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that.


I think you are looking at this incorrectly. Dont think of it as a game where they try to promote Wars, instead think of it as if it were real life. The goal is to stop corps from war declaring for the hell of it. Highsec wars will be more in line with nullsec in the sense that you cant just carelessly attack anyone without any risk of losing. If a nullsec alliance invades another groups space, the defending nullsec group will rally up all the help it can get! Why should highsec be any different?

So in the past where one corp would war dec 10 industrial corps for easy kills, in Inferno they will actually have to fight for those kills. Granted wars will become more rare as they are more risky, but I doubt wars will become a thing of the past. Corps will start wars because they might gain something of value (that is worth the risk), and not just for senseless fun.

If anything, CCP have made wars more realistic and in tune with human nature.
That's because you don't understand what you're talking about, as evidenced by stating that you could wardec 10 corps at once (no hate, just saying).

No one is saying that the old system was perfect. No one is denying that the old system was ABSURDLY cheap. However, it has been the policy of CCP to make things MORE dangerous and promote this as the "spirit of Eve." It was strongly implied that Inferno, while making wardecs riskier for the aggressorl, would promote wars and make them a MEANINGFUL mechanic, not an EXTINCT one (i.e. CCP did state that wars would be more risky for all involved, but never said anything about making them "rarer"). Also, not many people wardec for ISK, they do it for fun, payback, or revenge.

Sure, the updated costs (I also have an issue with the cost formula, but no one denies that costs did need to increase) will cut down on random grief wardecs, and I don't have too much an issue with that effect (as long as it isn't taken to an extreme, which it is). However, the ally system in its current state will more or less eliminate wardecs completely, with the possible exception of large, professional wardeccing corps.
None ofthe Above
#74 - 2012-05-18 22:06:20 UTC
Shandir wrote:

Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off.


That's a cute idea.

Preventing people from dropping corp though forgets that people are individuals (well except for the alts) and may not want to hang with the CEO. Trapping people in corps will have lots of nasty unintended consequences.

That said, corp names and tickers as trophies is an interesting idea.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

None ofthe Above
#75 - 2012-05-18 22:14:15 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:


The payment is all up front. It's a basic one lump some right now, we didn't want to implement a more elaborate payment scheme in the first iteration (like automatic reimbursement fund, etc.) - people can continue to negotiate that informally as they've done in the past. The main thinking here is to allow mercenary corporation to build up reputation over time. The public war history is the first step in that direction, allowing prospective patrons to check out the war history of an offering merc corp. Later on we want to expand the information given here to allow defenders to more easily see the 'worthiness' of a merc corp before deciding whether to hire them. A rating or ranking system of some sorts, maybe in EVE Gate, is also a possibility.


If an ally can't withdraw from the war and has no control of ending it, I don't expect this to be used too much.

Hardcore pvpers/mercs and the occasional grudge bearing crop.

It'll be used just enough and in flashy enough cases to appear to be working, but I think there really needs to be the possibility of withdrawal.

Additionally you talk about its possible for the defender and the ally to make their own arrangements for payment after the initial isk fee, but the ally cannot withdraw so has little leverage. (I suppose they could refuse to undock, but that's lame.)

Anyway, I look forward to these refinements.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#76 - 2012-05-18 22:14:22 UTC
I think I agree with the idea that the "holes" are just ways for corps to try and scam each other, and are part of the game. After all, if you find yourself in a war that you just want no part of, you can drop to an NPC corp. But if it just becomes a big mess, without us players learning how to sort it out I see two additions that would help:

Defenders can fire a useless ally. But any payment is still gone.

Allies can return payment and drop out. (After all they can drop out WITHOUT returning the payment by dis-banding).

The other thing that helps is to insure the war record is clear, concise, and provides the information needed to allow for a defender to make an informed decision on hiring any given ally.

Also, I foresee the biggest use of this system is to hire as allies members of your coalition, that is people you know and are friends with. For example, someone in your coalition makes the 1 pilot corp for setting up a POS. It gets decced. The one pilot corp brings in the PvP elements of the coalition as allies.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
#77 - 2012-05-18 22:18:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Haifisch Zahne
REMOVED TO PROTEST CCP's Community Censorship Protocol ("CCCP").
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#78 - 2012-05-18 22:25:28 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Shandir wrote:

Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off.


That's a cute idea.

Preventing people from dropping corp though forgets that people are individuals (well except for the alts) and may not want to hang with the CEO. Trapping people in corps will have lots of nasty unintended consequences.

That said, corp names and tickers as trophies is an interesting idea.


The not being able to drop corp has been used as for griefing in the past:

Corp recruits new players.
CEO gives them roles.
CEO uses them for target practice.
Members drop roles to quit corp.
CEO assigns them new roles before the 24 hours is up, trapping them in corp.

CCP fix: once you drop roles, new ones cannot be assigned to you.

If a war dec in any way trapped players in a corp, similar actions would be possible.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2012-05-18 22:26:07 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Didn't I hear soundwave talking about releasing content when it's finished rather than rushing towards expansion deadlines with unfinished garbage at some point? Oh I guess that was before crucible came out and CCP was still pretending to be apologetic about incarna and hadn't gotten back to the standard practice of releasing unfinished crap.



The bitterness is strong in this one.
This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.  Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#80 - 2012-05-18 22:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Vincent Athena wrote:


The not being able to drop corp has been used as for griefing in the past:

Corp recruits new players.
CEO gives them roles.
CEO uses them for target practice.
Members drop roles to quit corp.
CEO assigns them new roles before the 24 hours is up, trapping them in corp.

CCP fix: once you drop roles, new ones cannot be assigned to you.

If a war dec in any way trapped players in a corp, similar actions would be possible.

AFAIK this is one of the few things classified as "griefing" that is not allowed. My understanding has been that if you petition something like this, the GMs will take action.

That being said, not being allowed to drop corp is a bad idea. Just make the war follow corp droppers and/or give them the blemish discussed at fanfest. The currently proposed idea of not letting them rejoin for a set period of time is laughable.