These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#81 - 2012-05-18 22:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
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.


If the CFC joined as an ally, the aggressor corp just hit the jackpot! That corp wold be worth big time ISK! "You want to have a war vs the Goons for only 50 million a week? Buy our corp!"

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#82 - 2012-05-18 22:37:22 UTC
Quote:
Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.

I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#83 - 2012-05-18 22:53:47 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.

I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.



I think the new system is pretty good to start with and watch player behaviour.

Maybe a grace period to retract the war (no refunds, but a possibility to get out without surrender) after it has been made mutual by the defender could be helpful for newb corps wardeccing without proper intel...

I for one am looking forward to provide free assistance to many corps asking for help (no - not with this character).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Shandir
EVE University
Ivy League
#84 - 2012-05-18 23:29:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.

I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.


No, they started the war, and they'll suffer genuine consequences. The only corps that should not be trapped in a war are the mercs.

I would say it's fair to allow a timeout clause where a minimum price surrender is allowed. But only if both sides get that concession. The attacker has long been able to declare a war for an indefinite period of time (and still can), so long as they pay a small fee. That fee is still trivial to dec small corps.

If the attacker can trap a defender in a war for a trivial fee, then the defender should be able to trap the attacker in a war for significantly less in retaliation.

I'd say that after 90 days of war, a surrender option of a reasonable fee (perhaps equal to 1 month war fee) is available to both corps as an unrefusable offer. But the defenders get the right to screw over the attacker in some small way right now, and that is fair play.

Edit - regarding the above, I think that the get-out clause should specifically count as a surrender. 2 reasons: 1) They failed and deserve the negative mark on their record. 2) Surrender needs to become a more reasonable option to all parties, and the only way to do this is to decouple it from the idea of being a pinata. This provides a way to force corporations to have surrenders on record without necessarily making them ISK faucets. The surrender amount SHOULD NEVER be displayed in a place of record (nor available easily through the API).
Dain Highwind
La Isla del Mono
#85 - 2012-05-19 00:02:10 UTC
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????

When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2012-05-19 00:31:20 UTC
Dain Highwind wrote:
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????

When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.


O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2012-05-19 01:31:43 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.

I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.


Exactly. This is what they want. It will create a market place for trust-able Merc corporations. I think this system is beyond your scope of thinking.

Vincent Athena 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.


If the CFC joined as an ally, the aggressor corp just hit the jackpot! That corp wold be worth big time ISK! "You want to have a war vs the Goons for only 50 million a week? Buy our corp!"


Bingo

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#88 - 2012-05-19 04:21:25 UTC

I think the "Ally till death do us part" thing is a bit weird.

You also don't address, how does the payment for the war dec change with an ally?

If Corp A were to war dec corp B, a 2 man corp, and corp B hires Corp C as mercs, a 100 man corp.

The cost doesn't change?

Doesn't this open up the ability to perma-lock a mercenary into a war? The fee is only 50m. The mercs are 100 man corp. Grief the mercs into accepting contract, pay for war on 2 man corp indefinitely. Rinse repeat.

Pirate

Where I am.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#89 - 2012-05-19 05:10:31 UTC
My first thoughts:

The marketplace looks good so far, but I'm a bit confused that it's a buyer's market only. Why can a mercenary corporation not put up an order for its own services, giving a seller's market as well? This could definitely serve to drive up the prices of war assistance and consequently bring a better driving force to the mercenary economy. It would also allow both mercenaries and defenders both an active and a passive option to finding contracts and allies.

Simply turn it around and allow a corp to advertise itself as "For hire" with its war history, desired fee, and capabilities on display; potential customers could offer them bids and explain the situation of the war in their application, and the mercenaries could then choose which contracts to accept.

My only other question is:

Quote:
When you offer to ally someone, you must wait for them to respond, or 24 hours (which ever comes first) before making another formal offer.

Does this mean before you can make another offer to ANYONE, or only if you can make another offer to that same corp?

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
fdk trade
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-05-19 05:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: fdk trade
It's not very cool.I don't think that I need system to tell me who will fight for me.The real rules are offline rules.That means when we say 'deal ' we can fight or not.This new ally system looks like some sh^t in warcraft instead of EVE online.

Why people love to PVP? Because PVP is exciting. I kill enemies and get the wrecks. Thats like cutting their ears for the honor.
carmelos53
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2012-05-19 06:10:23 UTC
Thank you CCP for once again IGNORING your player base and the very feedback you asked for. Well done *applause*

You surely have forgotten the obvious massive feedback so let me remind you:
(oh and btw did t hilmar specifically say ccp would NOT be releasing anything unless it's 100% ready to go?)

1) still no neutral rr docking/gate jumping timer
2) unlimited defender allies??? Really?? No wait... REALLY????????
3) You just KILLED the merc trade by forcing us to charge one LARGE lump sum instead of a weekly sum (as now we'd be stuck for an undetermined amount of time in a single dec).
4) back to number 2.... REALLY??????
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#92 - 2012-05-19 07:00:53 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Dain Highwind wrote:
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????

When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.


O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing


Yay, sure, I could wardec A, offer him my alt B as mercenary ally and then get a free 10% additional insurance payback if he blows my stuff.
Shandir
EVE University
Ivy League
#93 - 2012-05-19 07:18:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:
Dain Highwind wrote:
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????

When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.


O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing


Yay, sure, I could wardec A, offer him my alt B as mercenary ally and then get a free 10% additional insurance payback if he blows my stuff.


Urgh, just because CCP hasn't implemented it for bounties in game does not mean that pretty much all the players have figured out an unexploitable method of dealing with bounty (which that suggestion effectively is) + insurance fraud. I bet you could even work it out yourself if you tried.
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2012-05-19 08:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Swidgen
This is destined to become the dumbest expansion ever. There are holes big enough to drive a tractor trailer through and EVERYTHING listed under the "Future" category should have been ready to roll with the rest of it. Almost nothing has changed for the better, and with neutral RR still in full force, the ONE thing that would make highsec wardecs a bit more manageable for the defenders is completely ignored.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-05-19 09:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jowen Datloran
Say, have you ever considered putting in real commitment and consequence for the attacking corporation?

How about, if the attacking corporation fails to inflict more damage (ISK value tracked in the War Report) than the defender at the end of a war (expires or one side surrender) every pilot who has been a member of the attacking corporation at one point during the war gets -2.0(?) to their personal security rating (CONCORD get pissed at people who bribes the system and fails to deliver)?

In mutual wars such penalty is voided.

Surely the aggressor would enter a war with some kind of expectation of being able to inflict damage to their enemy.

EDIT: The "unlimited allies for the defender" issue might need some fixing too.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#96 - 2012-05-19 09:05:23 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.


Exactly. This is what they want. It will create a market place for trust-able Merc corporations. I think this system is beyond your scope of thinking.

Not really. It's not the mercs who need to be trustworthy, but their clients:

  • Create fake alt corp (with trial accounts, it's easy to make it look like it has 30-50 members).
  • Wardec corp with your main corp.
  • Hire mercs to "defend" your fake alt corp.
  • Make war mutual.
  • Enjoy free unending war against merc corp, who now is overextended and can't take contracts.

Or even better:

  • Create alt corp.
  • Find one of those highsec alliances who think they are tough and dangerous because they have a POS in a lowsec deadend.
  • Annoy the hell out of said alliance until they wardec the alt corp.
  • Join war with main corp.
  • Make war mutual.
  • Enjoy free unending war against the alliance until they disband.

If this kind of trick becomes common, hiring mercs will be much harder. But it won't matter, because few people will bother declaring wars.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#97 - 2012-05-19 09:21:49 UTC
Quote:
Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.


Surely surrender of one side of the other is always the only way to end a war... It's just that in a non-mutual war the aggressor can obfuscate their surrender by accidentally not paying the bill.

There are also three valuable aspects of a war for a mercenary; the initial payment (which has an intrinsic value), the kills they achieve (which add to their killboard stats) and...

Quote:
"Evil Pair of Ducks surrenders to Pair of Ducks and Buddies for Hire."


(or even better just the mail direct to Buddies for Hire, it depends on how the system treats Allies in that regard).

With wars having to be declared mutual very quickly this creates all sorts of logistics issues for mercenaries and defenders.


It also seems to me that the Mercenary Marketplace is significantly less than half finished, it currently gives mercenaries a place to shop for wars (although only the 50 most recent ones, which seems a bit silly) but offers nowhere for them to advertise their services (which would allow defenders to choose to approach allies with good reputations, good records of successful intervention...etc. and allow aggressors to look up the advertising of the ally they just got notified about and see what they say about themselves).
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#98 - 2012-05-19 09:40:03 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
Ummm yeah.... Is this going to be like the "make adjustments... in the future" similar to the way you guys were gonna improve Black Ops? Or deal with scripts? Or Gallente? Or sov wars? Or any of the other things that have been promised scrutiny and action? I only ask because CCP's track record has been... well.... utterly #$^@ing terrible in that regard.

Or would it be more reasonable for us to assume that these are going to be the wardec destroying changes that we will be stuck with for the next few years as you are distracted by whatever new shiny pops up?
Severian Carnifex
#99 - 2012-05-19 10:35:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
MotherMoon wrote:
Dain Highwind wrote:
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????

When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.


O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing



CCP ****** it all... again.
Where is that yours "commitment" for the attacker???


But this is MUST!!!!
Put in this option of automatic paying agreed % of isk per inflicted damage.
If ally kill their pirate BS with worth 3B with modules and we agreed to pay ally 20% of their kill value, 600mill is transfered from my corp account to ally corp account.
First time there is no enough money, ally contract is void.
There can be and some one time fee at beginning too but it don't have to be.

This way ally must do their job for money.
No kills no money.
And this way ally get more money if they are good at what they do.
And you cant trap them for noting - they kill you must pay.

And maybe you can add contract with max damage.
When ally kill XXX isk contract is over.
That wold be for contracts where sides agree for bigger fee upfront and small or none per inflicted damage.
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-05-19 10:35:58 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
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.

What's even more laughable is the idea of giving a blemish to players who drop corp in order to dodge a wardec while refusing to name and shame characters banned for botting and RMT'ing. Let the punishment fit the crime, and bona fide cheaters deserve at least the same treatment.

One thing at a time, please, and CCP is going to have about a dozen things to fix after this fiasco goes live. Another half baked expansion, badly conceived with an awful implementation. Whatever. Anyone who saw the FF presentation about the new wardec system knows it was thrown together in a day or two without giving any serious thought to how the sandbox actually works.