These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#101 - 2012-06-13 20:33:28 UTC
Yay Protective Armor Hardeners.... :P

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Kody Grey
Banana Pants Incorporated
#102 - 2012-06-13 20:36:47 UTC
Why does CCP feel it has to create a merc industry in a sand box game? If a defender in a war wants to ally with free help and that free help wants to help for free, why not let them. If they suck then hey you get what you pay for.

So if you want "awesome" protection, hire real merc's with a proven track record but at a cost. Seems simple. The group of players in this sandbox game that would want to white knight for free should be allowed to do so.

So if you happen to get the situation where a giant alliance war decs a target and more people want to side with the defenders for free, well life sucks sometimes, this is a player driven sandbox game. Instead we have the developers stepping in, stopping the player driven content for I don't really know what exactly.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-06-13 20:51:15 UTC
Lack of communication strikes again it seems.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#104 - 2012-06-13 20:55:14 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Yay Protective Armor Hardeners.... :P


I know, right?

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#105 - 2012-06-13 21:06:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Honestly neither of us are lying. I talked to Kel, he barely remembered the adding cost to allies discussion because it went by so quick. He certainly wasn't pushing for it, and I was not left with the impression he liked it till I talked to him about it today.

Kel explained his position to me as that the ally fees are better than nothing since they'd stop "things from going silly" (which they will). From the merc point of view they're better than nothing but not by much. But I feel the spending power advantage now granted to big/rich groups at the expense of small/poor groups (and the middle guys tbh) outweigh the meager gains mercs get from this.

The "merc tailored" option Soundwave referenced that I pushed for was a cap on allies (2-3 would have been nice) but you would not have any cost for taking them. If you wanted to hire a merc, you could at whatever price you negotiated. If you wanted to bring friends in, you could do it for free. If you wanted to accept free help from strangers (or strangers that buy in to your war dec) you could do that too, or any combination of the three. I feel this would have restored the merc market (the real one, not the Inferno mechanic) close to where it was before Inferno while not further unleveling the playing field between the big guys and the little guys.

I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#106 - 2012-06-13 21:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
CCP Soundwave wrote:


I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.



Then why are you removing the ability to dogpile allies onto an attacker? It's NOT about 'saving' the merc profession, because these 'free allies' are no substitution for a proper merc corporation. Why do you think the Goons are mocking Jade with this several dozen of 'allies'? These opportunists only provide some distraction at best and everyone knows it (with apparently the exception of you, CCP Soundwave). They are no threat to the merc profession.

There's no good reason to exponentially tax their service. Allies are now quickly more expensive then wardecs FFS!

And here's the problem: there simply aren't enough actual mercs in EVE to help you defend against an entity like GoonSwarm and their CFC, let alone taking the fight to them in DeKlein. So that's why the ability to take in as many 'free allies' should remain, so the defender can at least fight back with de-centralized asymmetric warfare in empire. The only option left, yet CCP wants to take that away as well. How is that not CCP catering to the 'big boys'?

And then the removal of allies in mutual wars: You're removing THE BEST consequence mechanic of Inferno. : facepalm

Without allies in a mutual wardec a corporation will, in reality, NEVER manage to force a stronger attacker into surrendering. Yet this SHOULD be the main 'consequence' design philosophy behind the wardec system! How can CCP be so blind?!

What kind of reasoning is behind this decision? This has NOTHING to do with locking mercs indefinitely , because that issue is simply and completely solved by making ally contracts renewable every two weeks.

This also should have NOTHING to do with unlimited 'free allies' being unfair. Only fools think those 'free' opportunists will ever help you win a war. And only carebears (or pathetic null-bears) think they deserve some 'because we're bigger' protection on top of being bigger and thus able to simply deal with these annoyances (and living in null helps even more).

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#107 - 2012-06-13 21:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
spoke too soon.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#108 - 2012-06-13 21:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
how about the CSM start defending CCP's decision to toss the dogpile mechanic and remove allies from mutual wars. I would LOVE to see some good reasons justifying those decisions, because CCP isn't offering any.

Edit: Off topic part removed, CCP Phantom

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#109 - 2012-06-13 21:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:


I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.


I dont see many - if any at all - that think unlimited allies isnt gamebreaking. Even Jade. So thats not the issue here. Unlimited allies is dumb (because only the defender can have them) and need to go.

However, due to Concord, you dont have the freedom nullsec enjoys when it comes to setting up blues and allies that will help fight your enemies. In highsec, you have to be in on the wardec to participate. Which is why the wardec mechanic benefits from an ally system in the first place. But it cannot get out of hand, because unlimited allies essentially kills the mechanic. Hence why a few of us proposes a "numerical parity" mechanic, after which it will hurt financially to escalate, alternatively open up for allies to the agressor as well.

Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots.

To summarize, 1) a parity mechanic should hurt you as a defender if you try to achieve numerical superiority, 2) it maintains the (good) change that opened up the highsec wardec mechanic to the sorts of higher level organization that permeates nullsec (diplos, allies, blues etc), and 3) since you will be fighting with roughly equal numbers, quality comes in to play, which lends itself to a descision wether you should hire high quality mercs instead of just relying on your carebear friend corp.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#110 - 2012-06-13 21:22:28 UTC
134th!!!

Sensible changes I think, but I'm out of touch with war.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#111 - 2012-06-13 21:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Tobiaz wrote:
how about the CSM start defending CCP's decision to toss the dogpile mechanic and remove allies from mutual wars. I would LOVE to see some good reasons justifying those decisions, because CCP isn't offering any.


Both null and w-space pilots really don't care about high sec war decs. Alekseyev was the only member of CSM to actually be impacted by the 1.1 war dec changes, really. He's already made his opinion on the matter clear.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#112 - 2012-06-13 21:24:33 UTC
LtCol Laurentius wrote:


Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots. .


You can't be serious about a rag-tag bunch of opportunistic 'free allies' putting proper mercs out of a job.

They'll provide with some distraction for your attacker at best, but they'll only serve their own interests.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
None ofthe Above
#113 - 2012-06-13 21:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.

I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.

...

I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".

It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities were the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.

The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!

The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.

I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).

It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?

I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.

BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#114 - 2012-06-13 21:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
Tobiaz wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:


Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots. .


You can't be serious about a rag-tag bunch of opportunistic 'free allies' putting proper mercs out of a job.

They'll provide with some distraction for your attacker at best, but they'll only serve their own interests.


Thats exactly what I am saying. as long as you limit "free allies" to numerical parity in a wardec situatiuon, pro mercs should have no probs competing. But if it comes to a point where numerical superiority compensates for quality, that is obviously not the case any more.
Kody Grey
Banana Pants Incorporated
#115 - 2012-06-13 21:31:54 UTC
In 0.0 sec space (Wormholes, Null Sec) a group of smaller entities are free to dog-pile against a single larger entity. I don't play in Null Sec on a regular basis but I have been in a few good fights in wormhole space where this happens quite often. Now, before this fix its currently possible to do the same in High sec.

Why is that bad? Never ending war across all of Eve? Let me introduce you to this thing called PVP. The single giant entity could always just surrender if they need a breather. Nothing is broken about that concept. Totally player driven.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#116 - 2012-06-13 21:32:49 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.

I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.

...

I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".

It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.

The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!

The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.

I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).

It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?

I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.

BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.




Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.



The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2012-06-13 21:38:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
None ofthe Above wrote:
I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".

It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.

The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!


Yes. Looking at the massive list of corps and alliances that have "come to the aid" of Honda Accord or Star Fraction finds the usual suspects from the old, broken, "war dec everyone and camp Jita undock" types (and a few other of the more respectable high sec war dec'ers of old - nod to Moar Tears).

None ofthe Above wrote:
The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.

I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).


CCP had to put a limiter on there or defenders would go for the quantity over quality approach which is the antithesis of what promotes the use of good merc groups.

These changes are reasonable. However, it dos not address the root problem of a lack of real victory or defeat conditions in high sec wars. Okay, now a defender has a rational reason to hire a merc. What is the merc's stated goal to bring about favorable end to this war for the defender? The attacker can toss on a war, but for what purpose? It is still impossible to actually pin down an entity in high sec and demand their submission.

War decs are broken at their core. Arguing these mechanics is pretty useless.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#118 - 2012-06-13 21:43:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Jade Constantine wrote:



Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.


The best way, the only way, would be reversal of the removal of allies in mutual wars (making them essentially useless), and removing the exponential fee from allies (instead a fixed 10 to 25 M to keep out the worst thrash would be fine). Weaker corporations need to keep their ability to unleash a plague of opportunists when wardecced by the biggest alliances. And the game NEEDS the option for weaker corporations to force a stronger attacker into surrender (mutual+allies) as the MAIN 'consequence' mechanic of Inferno.

The 'free allies' by the way were never a threat to proper mercs. Good luck trying to get them to defend your mining op or take down an enemy POS. They'll just camp the hubs and routes and if you're lucky go after some targets of opportunity, restricting Empire activities (of what are mostly null-alliances).

No, mercs were handicapped actually by the unlimited time of ally agreements (fixed) and by the complete absence of a contract market for them to advertise their services.

Bagehi wrote:

CCP had to put a limiter on there or defenders would go for the quantity over quality approach which is the antithesis of what promotes the use of good merc groups.


Yeah it sounds so nice, but sadly it simply doesn't work that way. Quantity gets you a distraction at best. If you want to actually win a war you'll only do it with quality. This was already balanced and and working, and didn't need further help interference from CCP.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2012-06-13 21:45:46 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.

I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.

...

I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".

It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.

The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!

The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.

I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).

It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?

I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.

BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.




Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.





What you fail to understand here is that THIS IS THE BLOODY IMPROVEMENT :). Sorry about the yelling but I do not think jade is listening to the 5 CSM reps or the other 100 people telling him that he is batshit crazy.
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2012-06-13 21:49:26 UTC
What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.

I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides.