These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cuchulain Spartan
Unlimited 2.0
Infinite Pew
#21 - 2012-06-13 16:28:03 UTC
So an Ally classifies as a Corp or Alliance?

The size of said Ally doesnt affect the price?

Bringing in a 1 man Corp as an Ally will cost the same as a 500 man Alliance?

Shouldnt the Ally "fee" be based off of headcount of the Ally Corp/Alliance rather than what order they join the fight?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#22 - 2012-06-13 16:30:05 UTC
E man Industries wrote:
2 weeks is to short.
By the time a contract is set up it's almost over....
4 weeks would be better.


Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them?


Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do.

Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.

CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries
#23 - 2012-06-13 16:30:54 UTC
Does anyone here ~seriously~ think the Goons care about lots of folks being at war / allied against them in highsec?

The changes look like common sense to prevent silly, infinate, sprawling war decs which clearly are not the intention of the system.

Frankly I am hella bored of reading about this tedious tinfoil hat topic.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#24 - 2012-06-13 16:31:52 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
E man Industries wrote:
2 weeks is to short.
By the time a contract is set up it's almost over....
4 weeks would be better.


Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them?


Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do.

Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.

CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When?


Nope, that change currently isn't on the table.
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-06-13 16:35:20 UTC
Except for the prettier interface, I fail to see how this really addressed the problems with the old War dec system. Small groups are now a no risk option for big groups. I personally think that there should be a discount for extra allies as long as the combined number of participants on the defenders side is lower than the opponent.

With the nerf to defenders in terms of fees, why are allies now banned from mutual wars, given the two week timer. Surely they could just have a button which allows them to join the mutual war for as long as they wish? The reason for allies to be excluded really isn't clear as it again makes it a no risk option for the aggressor.

I'm all for war decs in empire, but this system really isn't any real improvement on the old with these changes. It's just preventing corp hoping and exploits to end the war quickly on the defenders part.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2012-06-13 16:40:04 UTC
BugraT WarheaD wrote:

Please ... Don't say such things ...

A cap limit for funding war and protection ? that's ridiculous. And if i'm dec, can I ally for free to PL, Goon and other big alliance ? That makes no sense.

In Eve there's big alliances and small corporation. When you create and/or enter an small corp/alliance, you know the risks and the benefits, wardec are still part of the game, and it's making perfect sense that big alliances can protect themselves easier than small ones.


Oh I agree that the inherit advantages that large alliances tend to bring to the table should not be limited, it wouldn't be realistic and it is right and proper that their better organization and better finances should be an advantage.

Nevertheless, at this point, it doesn't look to me like there would be any way for a small corp or alliance to be able to stand up to a large alliance aggressor without forking over what would be relatively large sums of money, either in fees or in defense contracts. I understand the merc viewpoint that having a "fee" for allies brings them more business.. but their own kill records should be sufficient enough as it is.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
AMirrorDarkly
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#27 - 2012-06-13 16:44:26 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
AMirrorDarkly wrote:
Wow, this shifts War decs firmly back to the advantage of the aggressor, I expected some sort of rebalance in light of what's happend with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame Sad


The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies).


Understand the reasons for the change, still stand by the fact this reduces consequences for the attacker. It was clear itteration was needed, but it feels a bit severe.

Don't mind the cost of ally's, or even the two week contracts....

But, I think locking out allies in a mutual war goes back to the mentality of oh we'll dec them, there isn't anything they can do because in two weeks if it isn't going our way we just don't pay the bill again.

The choice to sign up allies or employing mercenaries to humiliate the aggressor by forcing a humble pie surrender is no more!

Still, can't please everyone, and I'm glad you're itterating on ideas and not just leaving them by the wayside Big smile
Selissa Shadoe
#28 - 2012-06-13 16:48:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Selissa Shadoe
From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it

Quote:
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair.

Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#29 - 2012-06-13 16:48:07 UTC
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv.


I'm sure you realize that it appears that CCP bends to the will of Goons. I'm pretty sure that CCP is part of the goons at this point.


Why in the world would the Goons fight against a chance to gank everyone that ever complained about them, in highsec, without CONCORD interference?? This argument makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. The idea that Goons quaked with fear and ran crying to CCP to bail them out is pretty ludicrous.

To this day, neither Jade nor any of the other tinfoil-conspiracy crowd have been able to produce a good reason why Goons stood to lose so much without bending the wardec system to "save" them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2012-06-13 16:48:15 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
[quote=E man Industries]
Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.


+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.

Fix POSes.  Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one).
Max Swagger
New Eden Browncoats
#31 - 2012-06-13 16:50:24 UTC
Oh well back to where we started from. I guess we got a war report outta the deal????
Cid Tazer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-06-13 16:51:16 UTC
Would be nice to give defender's an objective besides don't undock until the war dec runs out. Even with the ally system, defenders can just turtle up and suffer nothing besides loss of potential gains. (Yes, they will not be able to do anything that they cannot do in station but until they are out of the station it is only a potential gain. So if you normally mine but are under a war dec as the defender, you are not losing anything but potential gains.)
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-06-13 16:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
This is a step in the right direction (limiting allies). However, concerns about the limit being too low, the cost quickly outpacing the cost of a regular wardec, and the possible crowding out of new/small/upstart mercs are all legit. Maybe go with some of the other suggestions (free hardcaps, lower fee, fixed fee, etc.) instead.

Also, I still think the entire cost structure is borked (doubling fee based on how many wars you have running, "more money for more targets" stupidity, 50m base fee for corporations, etc.)
Selissa Shadoe
#34 - 2012-06-13 16:52:01 UTC
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
[quote=E man Industries]
Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.


+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.


No, because alliance indicates other things - one corp has to be the executor corp, and then the whole alliance can be dec'd for the same cost as just one of the participant corps. So no, not a good solution. Don't even get started on alliance access to certain assets etc. A 'working relationship' to help out in a war is not worth the cost and hassle associated with forming an alliance.

"Whether suicide ganking or doing anything in eve, there are exorbitant amounts of people in the game and on the forums that are complete jerks." - Spikeflach
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#35 - 2012-06-13 17:02:02 UTC
Congratz on bringing the wardec mechanic back to the pure griefing tool it has always been. Obviously, providing non-pvp corporations with options to defend themselves was deemed very un-EVE like, so better rise the "war is unfair" banner as long is the advantage lies purely with the griefers.

Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs..
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#36 - 2012-06-13 17:05:25 UTC
Quote:
There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:

•Ally #1 – Free!
•Ally #2 – 10 million
•Ally #3 – 20 million
•Ally #4 – 40 million
•Ally #5 – 80 million
•and so on…


its not clear how it adds up.

will 5 allies cost 5x80mil or 0+10+20+4ß+80mil?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#37 - 2012-06-13 17:13:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...



Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted.

I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online.

It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far.

This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game.

Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year.

Maybe this will go the same way in six months.

Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec.

Business as usual.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#38 - 2012-06-13 17:17:55 UTC
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it

Quote:
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair.

Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread.


This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown.

Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example:

A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies.

Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies.




Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-06-13 17:19:34 UTC
CCP y u no buff Gallente hulls?

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#40 - 2012-06-13 17:23:49 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it

Quote:
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair.

Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread.


This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown.

Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example:

A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies.

Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies.



Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix".

I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom