These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#141 - 2012-06-13 22:30:16 UTC
Off topic posts removed.

Please remember that this is a feedback thread about the Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System devblog, thank you.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Orakkus
Southern Cross Monopoly
Flying Dangerous
#142 - 2012-06-13 22:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Orakkus
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

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.


If the limit was upped to say 5 or 6 allies, then this is something that I think would work much better than the system that has been proposed by CCP. Let the defender's isk be use to directly pay for defense or for ship replacement of their own. Don't let it get eaten up by "fees".

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

None ofthe Above
#143 - 2012-06-13 22:45:32 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Since CCP is turning the ally rules on thier head so completely I'm sure that CCP is giving current mutual War DEC's the option of quitting the war with no costs on the date of the rule change?


From my read, when 1.1 comes out all allies in non-mutual wars get a two week timer, and then their war drops. After that they'd have to signed back up as allies (for two weeks) and any appropriate fees would be paid at that point.

For mutual wars the allies are excluded so probably would be dropped immediately. Although I would recommend if CCP is going to change the rules around mutual wars, they should probably give the option to drop the "mutual", possibly drop all mutual wars into a non-mutual state with the option to re-up.

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

Forest Hill
Tirones Inc.
#144 - 2012-06-13 22:49:50 UTC
Any change to a game mechanic that actually gave some leverage to a defender had to be removed by CCP sooner or later. There would have been more sensible solutions, such as allowing allies to join for free until both sides match the name number of pilots for instance. It would have fitted the whole sandbox idea too.

But CCP isn't interested in providing a level playing field, it's all about catering to the griefer niche, pretty much. 'HTFU' surely does not apply to highsec wardec and merc corps..

Tbh I've been in Eve since 2008 but I'm getting pretty tired of this one sided business.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#145 - 2012-06-13 23:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#146 - 2012-06-13 23:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Marlona Sky wrote:
I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"


CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them.

At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway). Roll

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!

Jinli mei
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#147 - 2012-06-13 23:41:17 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
corestwo wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24:
Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.


If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then.




See this is the irony about the whole goonie thing. Whenever some poor miner pipes up on GD and goes "oh noes goons ganked my hulk lets all form up a giant alliance and go bash them!" the goons will generally say "come at me bro" and encourage the attack with bluster and bravado.

Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.


Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).

The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.

A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of.
None ofthe Above
#148 - 2012-06-13 23:44:10 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"


CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them.

At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway). Roll


FYI - In a mutual war, I would think either both sides should be able to pull in allies, or neither. It doesn't really make sense to me to treat one side differently than the other in this case.

I am perfectly comfortable with this change as long as people currently in wars that they've declared mutual are given the opportunity to back that down to non-mutual. (Although, allowing both sides to recruit allies could be pretty glorious.)

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

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#149 - 2012-06-13 23:52:31 UTC
Jinli mei wrote:
Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).

The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.

A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of.


Probably true, but there is too much Goon and TEST support for removal of the dogpile mechanics for null-sec alliances that shouldn't care about empire war-decs and hub raiding opportunists.

Fact is that no matter how deeply invested an alliance is in null, they remain addicted to empire convenience. And they simply don't like it when the game interferes with that (or interferes with their ability to interfere in empire for that matter).

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!

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#150 - 2012-06-14 00:02:27 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"


CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them.

At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway). Roll


FYI - In a mutual war, I would think either both sides should be able to pull in allies, or neither. It doesn't really make sense to me to treat one side differently than the other in this case.

I am perfectly comfortable with this change as long as people currently in wars that they've declared mutual are given the opportunity to back that down to non-mutual. (Although, allowing both sides to recruit allies could be pretty glorious.)


Making a war mutual shouldn't be about a 'fair fight' (as in both sides can get allies or neither can), but about providing actual consequences for the attacking corporation for war-dec aggression, making them choose their targets more wisely instead of war-deccing willy-nilly or unwilling to deal with the risk of having to surrender yourself if the defender brings unexpected friends.

That is simply the best balance to the massive advantages that comes with attacker's initiative.

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!

Jinli mei
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#151 - 2012-06-14 00:05:45 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
Jinli mei wrote:
Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).

The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.

A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of.


Probably true, but there is too much Goon and TEST support for removal of the dogpile mechanics for null-sec alliances that shouldn't care about empire war-decs and hub raiding opportunists.

Fact is that no matter how deeply invested an alliance is in null, they remain addicted to empire convenience. And they simply don't like it when the game interferes with that (or interferes with their ability to interfere in empire for that matter).


TEST/Goons/etc. only wardec hisec people because it pisses them off. If you noticed, Goons/TEST get by just fine suicide ganking people and don't need a wardec to accomplish ruining your day in hisec.

I see you also glanced over the part where I mentioned they already have been bypassing wardecs for years now by using alt-corps not in an alliance. As in, nothing has changed in the last 2-3 years that puts an alliances highsec logistics at risk. Not right now, not after this change, not before this change, not before inferno, not ever.
None ofthe Above
#152 - 2012-06-14 00:16:38 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:

Making a war mutual shouldn't be about a 'fair fight' (as in both sides can get allies or neither can), but about providing actual consequences for the attacking corporation for war-dec aggression, making them choose their targets more wisely instead of war-deccing willy-nilly or unwilling to deal with the risk of having to surrender yourself if the defender brings unexpected friends.

That is simply the best balance to the massive advantages that comes with attacker's initiative.


Making the war mutual is essentially, "screw you I am declaring war back on you".

The difference in the rules is that its a free wardec, in response to the original attackers wardec, and it takes away the aggressor's one advantage, the option to stop the war.

So at that point they are both aggressors.

I do see and understand your counter-arguments, but I can't agree that it's good balance or game mechanics. I don't think the intent is to discourage wars that much. It doesn't seem to preserve what is EVE, just my take on it.

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

Tithi
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2012-06-14 00:21:27 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
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.


******* nailed it. I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why in the hell the Goons would want LESS people in high sec to shoot at. They literally have nothing to lose here.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#154 - 2012-06-14 00:22:09 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
I'd point out I am also affected and have offered an opinion about how I would have preferred to have seen this changed. As has already been pointed out the CSM did offer alternatives but in the end we are advisory and not able to dictate to CCP how to change their game.

For me, its a disappointment, but I knew we could expect this to evolve somehow. I don't expect this is going to end up how it stays long term because I don't see it really addressing the problem with the current system. So all I think we can do is continue to offer feedback and suggestions for refinement. Then hope for the best.

Issler

The system is littlerally so broken it is unreal.

But seriously, these fixes seem to be going in the right direction. Non-mutual wars are still going to be pretty pointless though, some nominal fees just gives us more of an incentive to dec newbie corps that can't afford them.

(Assuming people don't start paying to join wars as an ally. Which, knowing us, would probably happen.)

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#155 - 2012-06-14 00:32:51 UTC
So. CRAZY idea. Any chance you can add in a system for a single pilot to join in as a merc without joining an associated corp? Not everyone wants to corp hop to get into a war and help a buddy. To me, that would perhaps be the coolest feature ever.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#156 - 2012-06-14 00:52:30 UTC
what eve needs is a skill which would allow to make your corp wallet negative. If you have enough friends you could now simulate greece with the ally system.

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

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#157 - 2012-06-14 00:56:32 UTC
Jonuts wrote:
So. CRAZY idea. Any chance you can add in a system for a single pilot to join in as a merc without joining an associated corp? Not everyone wants to corp hop to get into a war and help a buddy. To me, that would perhaps be the coolest feature ever.


If you are willing to forgo the alliance flag and view one as a means to do this, yes. I will be introducing such an alliance. Think of it like faction warfare. You don't really care much about the faction as a whole and just worry about how well your corp does.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#158 - 2012-06-14 01:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Devore Sekk
Aleph Phi wrote:
  • Increased capacitor consumption. Unless you're also intending to reduce the activation cost, a faster cycle time results in correspondingly higher energy cost on a per second basis. The reactive armor hardener already consumes dramatically more capacitor than standard armor hardeners -- this would only make that worse.

  • For these reasons, I would actively avoid training the skill. The reactive armor hardener can be situationally useful without it, but the drawbacks make it a liability.


    How is that different from the skill that reduces the Armor Repairer cycle? The rep one has the benefit of more healing at the cost of cap, the reactive hardener has the benefit of faster adaptation. There are _some_ differences I can see, the hardener, once adapted, doesn't normally need to change again, and there is no skill to make the hardener use less cap. I think either adding another skill to reduce cap use and/or changing the skill to also reduce cap use per cycle (so it's normalized over the same period of time with an unskilled hardener) would probably bring it back into balance. The point I do agree with is that skills are supposed to always be a benefit to train, and I think this one can use a tweak.

    Edit: I also thought overheating might be used to achieve the faster cycle effect on the adaptive hardener, but I don't think that's within the scope of the overheating mechanic.
    Gevlin
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #159 - 2012-06-14 02:23:34 UTC
    what about the issue of Corps splitting from an alliance to try and escape the wardec, Does this now cost the Aggressor substantial amount of money? Since the Cap of 500mill for a wardec is now side stepped? What if 5 Corps leave..... Or is this working as intendened.

    warming I am working from heirsay and have yet been able to log on to eve to actually try any of this stuff out... BLoody video card crapping out on me,,, no money... limited internet..... Grr.

    Just thank goodness for passive training. Caldari Dread 5 here I come!!

    Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

    Lykouleon
    Noble Sentiments
    Second Empire.
    #160 - 2012-06-14 02:38:32 UTC
    Man that utility menu is a sexy little thing...

    Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword