These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tithi
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#301 - 2012-06-15 20:21:51 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Tithi wrote:
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.


How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons.


They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward.


Well okay.

By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?


I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.

1.1's changes solve this problem though.
None ofthe Above
#302 - 2012-06-15 20:46:34 UTC
Tithi wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:


Well okay.

By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?


I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.

1.1's changes solve this problem though.


Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect.

Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.

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

Tithi
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2012-06-15 21:13:31 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Tithi wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:


Well okay.

By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?


I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.

1.1's changes solve this problem though.


Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect.

Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.


I agree, and so does CCP, so they are changing it...
None ofthe Above
#304 - 2012-06-15 21:32:26 UTC
Tithi wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Tithi wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:


Well okay.

By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?


I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.

1.1's changes solve this problem though.


Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect.

Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.


I agree, and so does CCP, so they are changing it...


"Changing it", very true. Good thing you didn't use the word "fixing", because I don't think that many could agree with that. I certainly couldn't.

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

SyntaxPD
PowerDucks
PowerDucks Alliance
#305 - 2012-06-15 22:01:59 UTC
Solution should not be done like this in devblog. Instead, it should leave a way to escape for agressor, with good cost.

Lets say it to be "surrender payout can not be higher than total cost of declaring war on every allied entity, who currently in mutual war with you" and "can not be lower than 1/2 of said sum". This usually called reparation, if you wish.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#306 - 2012-06-15 23:45:21 UTC
Is Jade still melting down itt?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

nomlet
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#307 - 2012-06-16 01:04:12 UTC
It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.

As for the allies isk sink.....

"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."

It doesn't make any sense.
Laashanna
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2012-06-16 01:05:41 UTC
A question shouldn't CCP allow corps out fo their current mutual wars? After they signed up for said wars under the old rules.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#309 - 2012-06-16 01:24:50 UTC
nomlet wrote:
It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.

As for the allies isk sink.....

"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."

It doesn't make any sense.

Actually Britain declared war on Germany, so they wouldn't be able to bring in allies at all.
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#310 - 2012-06-16 02:08:28 UTC
CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.

To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.

Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.

We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#311 - 2012-06-16 02:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Molic Blackbird wrote:
CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.

To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.

Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.

We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system.


Pretty good analysis really.

And yes the real problem with CCP's thinking is that they need to intervene to make Merc Corps profitable in the current system without providing any kind of structure, win condition or overall sting to wardecs in general. Eve is pretty much a game of laissez faire capitalism - if mercs can't make a living selling their services right now its because they are not offering the services people will want to buy, and trying to make them more attractive by nerfing free ally decs is just a clumsy attempt at protectionist intervention that still won't work because nobody has a motive to pay merc corps to camp trade hubs (when there are so many corps who will like to do it for free).

I do tend to agree with you also - that when Soundwave sees this fix does nothing for the merc corps and players adapt again by forming 1000 man hisec trade hub ganker alliances to get around the ally nerf - he will be tended to kneejerk again and put more limtis on the system all the way back to pre-inferno wardecs.

All we might be left with longterm is the increased price to dec Goonswarm (500m rather than 50m) and that could well be the only lasting legacy of Inferno's wardec "boost."

End of the day I suspect this is all simply about the re-assertion that hisec is a place where nullsec aristocracy comes to hunt and grief rather than a place where people are given the chance to "fight back."

Eve is a hard game, but its hardest of all if you aren't in a super alliance living off the milk and honey of endless moon goo and protected from the consequences of your actions in all ways possible.

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

Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#312 - 2012-06-16 03:43:53 UTC
In my reading of these threads, I often saw the phrase "edge cases" in reference to large null sec alliances deccing a small high sec corp. It was stated that CCP can not design game mechanics around "edge cases". In my view, wars that require merc corps are edge cases. The vast majority of wars in Eve have no need for merc corps. The number of people affected at any one time by wars needing mercs has got to be a tiny percentage of the Eve playerbase. Yet, CCP is designing a whole system around an "edge case".

Could it be that Merc corps were being overpaid prior to Inferno? When ever a more efficient marketplace is created, prices naturally drop in price. By CCP trying to help Merc corps, they may have forever damaged them. CCP will undoubtedly create 'fix' after 'fix' to save the Merc profession. A profession that might not ever be saved. There are just too many people wanting to blow stuff up in high sec without Concord interference.


Something else I found very puzzling was the insistence that every member of a corp be counted when it came to the war dec fee because you are paying for lots of targets, yet the people making that claim would turn around and say you don't need thousands of people to fight a null sec alliance war dec because only a handful are ever in high sec. Which is it? Are there thousands of targets or a handful of targets?




Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#313 - 2012-06-16 04:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
A proper "mercenary marketplace" solves all of the issues. Anyone should be able to go to the mercenary window (call it whatever you like) and look up available mercenaries, negotiate on prices and durations, all under a contracted system. Contract is signed, isk changes hands, and war is automatically declared for the duration. Mercs that perform well in each and every one of their war decs will be in high demand and able to charge more for their pwnage services.

That's it. No limits on defenders/aggressors, no fancy "allies" system. Just a contract and a free market with a nice looking UI. The cost of the wardec itself (each merc corp is essentially declaring a new war whenever a contract is accepted) should be the base bidding price for hiring the mercs, that way they can cover the costs (unless they're willing to not only work for free, but take the hit to their own wallet to declare the war in the first place.)

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

SKARIII
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2012-06-16 05:34:10 UTC
There are a couple of fundamental changes required here:

1) Wardec cost should be based on the ratio difference between aggressor and defender's member counts. The bigger the difference the higher the cost on an exponential scale. I suggest 1M for a 1:1 ratio and 100bil for a 1:10 ratio
2) Adding allies will lessen the cost for the agressor as the ratios become smaller
3) wardec cost should be included in the war report
4) a penalty for defending corps/alliance if members leave during wardec، specially when smaller corps dec bigger corps، payed to the agressor

The method of forcing the defender to pay for allies is rubbish. If I ask a friendly aliance to come help for free that is my choice. If I want to pay mercs to come help, that is also my choice. If I want the entire eve to come help me free of charge, that is my choice. All I need to keep in mind is that this will lessen the cost of the agressor to the point where it will cost them virtually nothing to keep the wardec going ( provided the numbers match up).

So if you want targets، you'll have plenty. The mercs can stop bitching and do a better sales job. This is after all a sandbox game, I want choices, not somethig CCP forces upon us
Angel Lust
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2012-06-16 09:27:00 UTC
Its funny to see how fast CCP came up with this wardec "fix" Lol

Highsec carebears have to wait.... and wait... and wait.... and wait.....
Trevor Nyx
Doomheim
#316 - 2012-06-16 09:32:03 UTC
Simply do not allow to join as an ally for a defender when he is at war with an other fellow ally! It would limit the network of wars that is seen now by the professional war dec corps/alliances like 0rphanage and their ex corps. Being allies here and at war there. It is kind a NBSI environment within the wars their are connected to. Leading to less nonsens ally -> more intentional ally > more skilled allies = mercs.
Endeavour Starfleet
#317 - 2012-06-16 09:56:09 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).


Tell me soundwave have you even remotely considered that small corps will be harmed by this change the most? Now the pointless wardecs will start again when the wardec corp knows that small corps feel the pain of isk to bring in more allies.

And even better if you really want to drive them out of EVE split your forces into multiple corps.

This change returns wardecs into the griefing camp. And thus utterly makes the work CCP did on them pointless.
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2012-06-16 13:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Delen Ormand
gah... deleted it cos only half got posted. I'm hating this forum system...
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#319 - 2012-06-16 16:46:25 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.

Can anyone exactly explain how? You realise you can go shoot them in nullsec, for free, all day every day right? You realise absolutely nothing in this change STOPS you from forming a large "coalition" to go and fight nullsec powerblocks, right?

Do you also realise the self same groups were wardeccing the Goons before the change, and paying a small 50-150mil a week to do it?

Given your answers to the above, do you really want a mechanic which is designed to be usable only in the case of a large alliance wardeccing you?

If people could take "goons" off their brains for 2seconds they'd see the change for what it is.

I'm coming to understand that none of you are able to do this. Pity.

Jade keeps telling us about his "mighty coalition of allies who have banded together" but still dodges basic questions about them, such as whether he has even spoken to the people pressing "ally all" in their Neocom. Someone who wants to "shoot goons for free" (his words) is not an ally fighting for his ideals.


We're talking about how it may benefits large alliances because thats where the potential issue is - the fact that the mechanic works for the vast majority of eve is good, so no complaints there. We're just discussing certain edge cases that could potentially allow abuse. The fact that we've already seen attempts to do this (and then a counter, and then CCP stepping in to remove the counter) suggests that hey, maybe the mechanic is something that needs a bit more fine tuning

All I see you doing is blithering on about how people are crying about goons, rather than anything constructive
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#320 - 2012-06-16 16:51:01 UTC
The Bi-Weekly Attention Span
Eh... I don't have a very clear opinion but seems wrong

Money For Nothing
I can see how this can be a good change. As mentioned by Soundwave, 1000 people joining at no cost kinda defeats the whole purpose of the system.


You Can Bribe Me, But Not Too Much
I like this change a lot. It only makes sense that if there's a clear cut minimum there should be a similar maximum, rather than one based on an algorithm.

Push the Button
What about showing both kill/loss reports with color codes :(

About the Skill
What the hell are you guys thinking? Is it your new company policy to stick one big thorn into every expansion?
Allright, so the Reactive Armor Hardener is an "experimental" mod right? Which means, you don't know if you want to keep it in the game, and thus you released no blueprints for it. And yet, you're adding skills to be able to use it... A RANK 5!11!!1! Skill at that. Unless you plan on keeping that mod and thus introducing meta 0 variant, the relevant BPO and other meta versions of it, etc. etc. then it makes no sense to have to train any skills to use it.
Am I missing something here?

Other than that, thanks for your time and continued hard work!

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!