Test Server Feedback

One possible idea is to simply have the NPCs disable EWAR on a player when player EWAR from an opposing faction ship is in effect.
In this situation, you also block LP from being generated in the PLEX (i.e. the PLEX shuts down negative and positive effects whilst PVP is occuring withiin it).

This would both enable PVP without NPC interference and stop players gaming the system by using alts in other militia.

I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as).

Thankyou military historian sir! o7o7o7

Can you tell me then - based on this "fact" - why the Iraq war happened?

Or the Gulf War?
Or the Iraqi invasions of Kuwait that lead to it?
Or World War I?
Or World War II?
Or the Cold War?
Or ....

Wait.

Mister military history genius, when has a war ever existed simply because both sides were even? Name one?

Oh, yes this I completely understand, so in reality I'm questioning whether such a logic can actually be applied to the EvE code.

In my head the application of player EWAR toggles the state of the PLEX (one change) and it stopping toggles it back. The NPCs would simply check whether they were in PLEX state 1 or 0 and their behaviour would be A or B ... but I really don't know if that works on a design level here (the PLEX would be an environmental variable, much like say a WH).

I suspect the code to do that cleanly doesnt exist so that would be a massive change compared to doing things like adding stasis towers (you could even do these near the warpin so they are easily destroyed) or other changes that require little coding time.

I just find it silly it cost 500 million ISK to war dec 90 dudes.

Man this topic has provided some gripping reading which I've burned through at a fever pitch. Thanks for that.

So unintentional consequences to gameplay revealed themselves on TQ (because a large, dominant power alliance probably doesn't exist on Sisi,) in that the new unlimited allies change to the wardec system is causing the borders around Goon territory to blob red.

Whether changing it back quickly is being done to help mercs being overlooked due to preferentiality being marginalized or because it benefits a current, in-game power alliance isn't even relevant to the issue imo. That the changes unintentionally made it easier for small corps to band together to wipe out a large one must be wonderful but that wasn't their intent. CCP would have little interest in making it more difficult for alliances to maintain power.

It's easy to confuse balance with fairness. But they are oceans apart in meaning. Competitive pvp gameplay isn't meant to be fair.

With that being said, as someone who has no feelings either way, I do wish I were able to see both futures in this scenario. If all of high-sec were to hold hands in a massive, interconnected web of unlimited ally, hand-holding, kum-ba-ya'ing do-gooders and actually managed to wipe the entire Goon alliance off the map - what happens then?

I don't know, but I think it would be some compelling player-generated content.

I'll say one thing about Inferno. You guys sure named it aptly.

Yonis Kador

I think the point is in a game (which this is) people will be far more likely to fight when they feel they have a competitive fighting chance. If people do not feel they have a competitive fighting chance then they will simply opt not to fight.

The challenge for you as a game designer is to implement a war system that is not mechanically-unbalanced in favour of the attacker because unless you can achieve that then wars will continue to be see as simple yawny-griefing decs and people will not take them seriously. By allowing the defender to take steps to fight back you will make wars competitive and when they are competitive people will fight them in earnest.

Obviously nothing in Eve is objectively "fair" a huge alliance still has all the advantages over a small alliance. They can offer the directors of the small alliance 10b isk to disband the alliance, they can hire superstar pvp corps to join their alliance, they can camp stations with 100 tornados etc. They still have all the cards. But by allowing the Defender to enlarge the war and even the field a little more you turn them from helpless victims into people who just might have a fighting chance and start shooting back.

I think you are making a profound mistake Soundwave by confusing the ideology and marketing spin of Eve "nothing is fair its a cold hard universe HTFU noobs!" with the need to program game systems which are not stupidly unbalanced in favour of the people with the biggest alliances.

Sure Eve is an unkind unforgivening brutal PVP game.

But it is also a game where a noob in a frigate can point a dreadnaught and make a difference in a fleet battle. Its always been a game of extremes where massive wealth and power exists but where the little guy can use clever tactics and systems to fight back.

Eve is a game where entire constellations of nullsec can be stopped from sanctum-farming because an anarchist in a cloaking bomber has been sighted in local. If you brought your "eve ain't fair the big should triumph" ideology there you should be giving 0.0 alliances their own concord and cloak detectors.

But no, Eve is the Eve of the Butterfly Effect video, the I was there, video, which is not JUST about the strong always dominating the week but is also about the little guy making a difference.

By pushing through this Wardec change you are removing a option for the little guys to make a difference and just bringing significant advantage to the big guys. You are the one meddling with the sandbox and intervening in wars Soundwave. Inferno had found its great player led feature in the collective defense against 0.0 bloc "griefing" - but you are taking that away.

In essence you are nerve-stapling emergent gameplay and removing variety from war-fighting strategy.

I say step back and think about this please. Don't kneejerk nerf a great feature of Inferno. Be the CCP that allowed Burn Jita to happen without interfering. Let this war system run in the wild and see where it takes us when the players are given freedom in the sandbox.

I've cut through your word salad, once again, to illuminate the point you keep lying about.

You're free to hire mercs who can give you a fighting chance: in fact, Soundwave is trying to make mercs a viable profession. You're not demanding the tools you need - you will have them. You're demanding they be free and idiot proof. That's what this is all about at its core: you just don't want to pay the piper.

Moreover, even if you managed to recruit every hisec trash corp in your free and idiot proof crusade, you'd STILL never be able to do any meaningful impact against the ebil alliance since you won't actually go to where it lives or operate cooperatively.

Your entire argument is a strawman. Give it up.

The question I have is why does the balance of power need to be in favor of the aggressor? You seem to want one side to be stronger but restricting the defender's ability to add allies means the person who's declaring war has a significant advantage.


I'll skip the disagreement in philosophy of running Eve because we both know we don't see eye to eye on what's best for the game. However lets talk about the crux of the matter; providing employment for mercenaries.

The statement was made that having unlimited free allies takes away from Merc employment and I can agree that people with friends won't have to use Mercs. I do disagree with having to pay Concord a fee to bring in an Ally. What is the point of playing an MMO if you are penalized for having friends? That is what this change seems to imply, groups of allied friends can't support each other without having to pay for the privilege of being friends.

The problem therefore is how to keep Mercs employed while at the same time allowing friends to help each other out. There are several options to consider.

1. Differentiate between Mercs and allys. Allow up to 10 allies to join for free and afterwards charge a fee. Still allows the defender to get some help but cuts down on mobs of unknown conscripts.

2. Do not have a set time limit for Ally participation, instead let the players decide how long they want to be part of the fight. It's supposed to be a sandbox so why not let the people agreeing to help out decide if they want to be involved for a week, two weeks, or longer. Options are better then having to conform to another person's standard.

3. Instead of vague goals like fight against someone for X amount of time make Mercs actually have to generate results to get paid. A Merc gets hired to kill 20 of the opposition and they don't get full payment until they've scored 20 kills. Maybe you hire them to kill a POS to get paid. The groups that get results will be known and more likely to be hired. Use a 50% pay up front, 50% upon completion to give Mercs some form of income but to also allow for times when the targets hole up or call in even more reinforcements.

4. Create a hiring board in game. Mercs can post what they are capable of doing, time frames they are available, and areas they are willing to operate in. Also allows job postings to be listed letting Merc groups know what work is out there. No war ded is required to review or hire from this page.

5. Allow anonymous hiring of Mercenaries. The Mercs can be the aggressor in a war creating another level of meta game to exist.

6. Have a list of top rated Merc corps on the hiring board.



The above changes would allow small alliances to still have allies without abusing the privilege. Mercs would have more tools to ply their trade, and could be used to hit specific targets when needed.


I think those changes would make wars more competitive for both parties while still allowing small groups the option of seeking help from friends. Mercs would have a role and be able to participate in their chosen profession.


P.S.- I applaud your concern to make sure different playstyles have the support needed to be a functional role in the game. How about taking a look at mining barges and giving them some additional tank options to make killing them require and equal amount of risk? A T2 mining barge shouldn't be prey to a T1 destroyer. Considering the costs involved a T2 barge should require something like a BS to take it out. A T1 barge should be looking at a BC level ship before worrying. Current game mechanics make it almost impossible to protect a mining vessel, even when a tank is used instead of mining modules. Having modules in game implies you want people to use them but having such a fragile vessel to begin with means the mining modules have to be ignored in order to fit a tank that probably want save you in the end anyway. I realize Eve isn't supposed to be fair, but why not put the requirement on the aggressor to work for a kill instead of making mining have no role in high sec. Sort of like Mercs wanting to play the game they way the enjoy too.