These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2012-06-21 20:42:32 UTC
I have cleaned this thread a little by deleting few troll posts.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
None ofthe Above
#502 - 2012-06-21 21:06:34 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


I don't actually mind allies needing to choose to commit to only one war. If thats the way of creating scarcity then so be it. Certainly from a mercenary perspective it makes sense they would be concentrating entirely on the war they are paid to fight no?

And I quite like the autorenewal free forever but pay if you back out before the end of the war thing as a neat mechanic to stop risk free farming of war offers.

In general Khanh'rhh's revised solution is not the one I'd go with instinctively but its NOT a bad solution - and its a lot better than the 1.1 solution the devs have offered us.


Fair enough.

I'd like to see Aleks' take on it, or various parties in the Merc community. It might suit you, but I worry it would have negative impacts for them, that might be easily handled with a few tweaks.

Not sure how much attention this is going to get considering what other things have hit the fan today. This appears to have been Soundwave's baby (at least he was the Devs voice for it, earlier in the thread) and I suspect he's otherwise occupied at the moment.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#503 - 2012-06-21 22:33:08 UTC
>.<

include a corporations standings towards the 4 highsec factions and concord into the calculations for cost to wardec.
Higher standings = higher cost
Alliance NPC Standings = a macro version of how corporation standings are derived, also stops gaming of the system.

stagger the standings to cost increase on a logarithmic scale to provide a cost disincentive defence for small high standing corps against huge moderate/low standing corps/alliances.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#504 - 2012-06-22 03:59:10 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


That seems to be the general sentiments - wars should be unfair... so long as the unfairness is in favour of big nullsec alliances. If it's unfair AGAINST them then that's unfair and we need to make the unfairness unfair to be unfair for other people because thats only fair.


I think I said that

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#505 - 2012-06-22 04:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Jade Constantine wrote:
Kale Freeman wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Kale Freeman wrote:
Another suggestion...

What about separating mercs from allies

Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!

Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.

EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end!



Works for me.


Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic.


Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender. End of the day its diffcult to divorce people's in-game interest and bias from this discussion on any level - thats kinda what we need the devs for.



Funny tho; isnt that how the big dogs in 0.0 work it? Set to blue all the ppl in the "treaty" in this case. Nobody seems to be QQing that theres too many ppl giving brohugs and asking CCP to change that.

CCP Goliath wrote:


On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.



SO I do have a specific question then, how does the crapload of smalls forming together to take on a large functionality work?

Cause toppling a large isnt usually gonna come from another large getting tired of being bloated and fat.

Small groups getting together to get rid of a bigger group

like for instance say all the high sec miners getting sick of getting decced by Goons, banding together and having at it (yeah fantasy, I realize, but hey its what Goons say to do, "come at me bro" and all)in a war.

Doesnt work real well when the costs to bring people into the war to get the edge in numbers (thus NOT "making it fair") goes into the infinite.
Working as intended?

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#506 - 2012-06-22 04:46:53 UTC
I've read the statement several time that the current system isn't working because if one small corp war decs another small corp, the defending corp could bring in enough allies to make it 10 to 1 in their favor. That is considered bad. Yet, if the opposite happens and a 2000 member alliance war decs a 200 member corp that is considered to be an 'edge case' and something to tolerate. In the case of two small corps, the attacking corp can end the war after 1 week if things go bad. In the second example, all a 200 member corp can do is hope none of its membership gets someone in large alliance mad enough to war dec them.


If it is true that allies have a 24-48 hour cool down before they can be renewed, then corps having a POS to defend will need 2 merc corps hired staggered a week apart to make sure at least one is around for defense. But wait, you can only hire 1 before you need to pay a penalty fee?
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#507 - 2012-06-22 07:45:23 UTC
Molic Blackbird wrote:
I've read the statement several time that the current system isn't working because if one small corp war decs another small corp, the defending corp could bring in enough allies to make it 10 to 1 in their favor. That is considered bad. Yet, if the opposite happens and a 2000 member alliance war decs a 200 member corp that is considered to be an 'edge case' and something to tolerate. In the case of two small corps, the attacking corp can end the war after 1 week if things go bad. In the second example, all a 200 member corp can do is hope none of its membership gets someone in large alliance mad enough to war dec them.


If it is true that allies have a 24-48 hour cool down before they can be renewed, then corps having a POS to defend will need 2 merc corps hired staggered a week apart to make sure at least one is around for defense. But wait, you can only hire 1 before you need to pay a penalty fee?


I said it before, EVE isnt meant to be fair but only for the defender apparently

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#508 - 2012-06-22 08:42:21 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Kale Freeman wrote:
Another suggestion...

What about separating mercs from allies

Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!

Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.

EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end!



Works for me.


Form an alliance then you be in the same war, yeah, you would be showing your commitment to your cause?

Mind you I think if the Goons actually took you seriously and came to hi you and your "friends" may stay and fight I suspect however your allies (and their remote reps) would simply dock up to protect their killboards.

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#509 - 2012-06-22 11:54:51 UTC
Really, what it all comes down to is people desiring some little special bits here and there to deal with edge cases (like 9000 man alliances targeting ten man corps / individuals, intent on running the war forever because the little guy can't do anything about it). 1.0 did that in an unexpected way, but unfortunately it also cocked up the more typical wars, 1.1 will work better for the majority of wars but those extreme cases are still a problem. Pisspoor damage control such as "well wars shouldn't be fair" doesn't cover it, clearly, as many people are still talking about it
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#510 - 2012-06-22 13:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
CCP Goliath wrote:

(in reply to question of balancing payments of small entities fighting back as allies vs large entities)

On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts.


Cuts all ways. If you are looking at the total size of the attacking entity and saying that the defender can freely add allies to the war up to the total number of pilots the attacker has (then they need to start paying) then you simply count heads. Both sides have exactly the same issue with alts and inactives so its senseless to worry about such pilots on either one side or the other. You can happily ignore both factors.

CCP Goliath wrote:
I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere!


Couple of problems with the alliance option:

1. CCP have not iterated on the alliance structure in years. The mechanisms are not suited to creating a loose coalition of wardec fighters that grows beyond a certain size. You need to personally control 1 alt corp for every single external corp you allow in otherwise you will lose control of the alliance to infilitration. While I can understand CCP pushing this "solution" because it means you'll sell more subscriptions (we'd need an addition 17 accounts to ensure our 50 strong coalition against goons could continue within an alliance structure) - its not an equitable solution or decent alternative to the Inferno 1.0 war system.

2. Its also not free (which is the point) it costs 2m per ally per month + 1billion formation costs + 1 alt per alt corp to ensure you are secure against infiltration/disband or approximately 500m per month per 3 corps in your alliance) and its again making the defender pay a disproportionate isk surcharge far greater than the miniscule sum taken from the attacker for the declaration.

CCP Goliath wrote:
It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system.


Why not? It was considered healthy in the initial Inferno 1.0 devblog on war where Soniclover explains his thinking and says its a consequence to the attacker that sometimes they can find themselves in wars where unexpected things happen. The Free Ally system was a natural balance to the closing of loopholes and discount declarations for the attacker really, removing it swings the balance completely back to the largest alliances in Eve and thats the problem.

CCP Goliath wrote:
Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.


And the proposed solution (defensive allies are charged only if the defensive coalition outnumbers the attacker) is specifically balanced for everyone. All cases, big vs small, small vs small, medium vs medium and large vs large. So its more functional than the solution you are going with.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#511 - 2012-06-24 20:36:05 UTC
Yeah, making people pay for allies was and still is a terrible decision, CCP.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service
#512 - 2012-06-24 21:09:37 UTC
I was wondering, can someone explain to me, HOW do you make war fair? If war was really fair, There would be no more wars. One side or the other has to have, or potentially have the ability to gain the upper hand,

If you're the little guy, you get forced into war, because the big guy wants to kick your butt. And, if you're lucky, before you go down for the count, you get some other big guys to jump in on your side, and kick the bully's butt. If not, you die a horrible, painful death.

Oh well, hit reset, start again.

I mean, really. I thought CCP wanted more fighting? This change is probably gonna discourage it. But hey, not my game. I just play here, once in a while, for FIVE LONG YEARS. Yeah, I know. A lot of you have more time invested than that. Still, I think I'm entitled to gripe once in a while.

Oh well. Now, where did I put that STO launcher icon???

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago?
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
#513 - 2012-06-25 05:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vladimir Pulin
CCP Goliath wrote:

[...]
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.



Here's a scenario then.

Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp.

I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war.

This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name.

Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining.

Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1

Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#514 - 2012-06-25 10:45:30 UTC
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

[...]
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.



Here's a scenario then.

Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp.

I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war.

This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name.

Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining.

Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1

Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?


Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#515 - 2012-06-25 11:26:41 UTC
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

[...]
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.



Here's a scenario then.

Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp.

I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war.

This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name.

Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining.

Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1

Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?


This is the way things have always been.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Lady Boon
Light Matter Project Holdings
#516 - 2012-06-25 12:03:19 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:

Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!



I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game.

Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay?

Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way.
Lady Boon
Light Matter Project Holdings
#517 - 2012-06-25 12:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Boon
Double post because Virgin Media are rubbish
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#518 - 2012-06-25 12:05:52 UTC
Lady Boon wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!



I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game.

Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay?

Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way.





I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree?

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Dantes Wolf
Interstellar Corporation of Universal Management
#519 - 2012-06-25 12:07:06 UTC
CCP Guard wrote:
Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog.

Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always Smile


chances are noone will read this, but.. seriously.. Amazing job ( at least from reading the patch notes ) - last few days Ive been wondering what on earth you guys DID @ CCP.. seems your finally getting structured and things are taking shape :) 650+ MB of solid data on the porch and patchnotes looking like you went from rubble to almost complete castle in the blink of an eye ( EVE - time ;) Really glad to see it and looking forwards to testing it :)

D.

( oh ye, ty for the orbit approach thing, really, thnx for taking it serious, and with such a short notice also - Can play EVE again now =)

"Before you diagnose yourself with low selfesteem and depression, you should first make sure, that you are not just, in fact, surrounded by assholes".
Lady Boon
Light Matter Project Holdings
#520 - 2012-06-25 12:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Boon
Removing double post because Virgin Media is rubbish.