These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#201 - 2012-06-14 13:28:36 UTC
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Kismeteer wrote:
eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort:
Quote:

1 ally = 0 Million
2 allies = 10 Million
3 allies = 30 Million
4 allies = 70 Million
5 allies = 150 Million
6 allies = 310 Million
7 allies = 630 Million
8 allies = 1 Billion
9 allies = 2 Billion
10 allies = 5 Billion
11 allies = 10 Billion
12 allies = 20 Billion
13 allies = 40 Billion
14 allies = 81 Billion
15 allies = 163 Billion
16 allies = 327 Billion
17 allies = 655 Billion
18 allies = 1 Trillion
19 allies = 2 Trillion
20 allies = 5 Trillion
21 allies = 10 Trillion
22 allies = 20 Trillion
23 allies = 41 Trillion
24 allies = 83 Trillion
25 allies = 167 Trillion
26 allies = 335 Trillion
27 allies = 671 Trillion
28 allies = 1 Quadrillion
29 allies = 2 Quadrillion
30 allies = 5 Quadrillion
31 allies = 10 Quadrillion
32 allies = 21 Quadrillion
33 allies = 42 Quadrillion
34 allies = 85 Quadrillion
35 allies = 171 Quadrillion
36 allies = 343 Quadrillion
37 allies = 687 Quadrillion
38 allies = 1 Quintillion
39 allies = 2 Quintillion
40 allies = 5 Quintillion
41 allies = 10 Quintillion
42 allies = 21 Quintillion
43 allies = 43 Quintillion
44 allies = 87 Quintillion
45 allies = 175 Quintillion
46 allies = 351 Quintillion
47 allies = 703 Quintillion
48 allies = 1 Sextillion
49 allies = 2 Sextillion
50 allies = 5 Sextillion


PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!


Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P


We're currently up to 40 allies so rest assured we will.










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

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#202 - 2012-06-14 13:28:40 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.

Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.

NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair".

So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.

[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]

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#203 - 2012-06-14 13:31:48 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP.


Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Ugh


Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.


It really isn't an exploit. I recommend you check the Inferno devblog on war. CCP intended this mechanic - they have probably been surprised at the way its been used however, and weren't expecting people to band together so effectively to fight nullsec aggression with the system.

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

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#204 - 2012-06-14 13:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.

Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.

NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair".

So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.


Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve.

(if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets referencing your own post for example).


So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help.

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

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#205 - 2012-06-14 13:38:16 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.

Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.

NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair".

So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.


Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve.

(if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets).

So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help.

It doesn't help merc corps, when indie corps instead of limiting their options and choosing the "best" people for the job choose to just allow anyone into the war.

The whole idea of the merc marketplace is that a small, but rich, corp attacked by a big bunch of griefers can hire mercs as allies. Under your system you're just back to free allies and a free goon forever war.

[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]

The D1ngo
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2012-06-14 13:43:09 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
I highly disagree with this:

Quote:
There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:

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


I think this point alone discourages smaller alliances and corporations from defending against large, generally better funded, alliances. And to be honest, this sounds too much like the Mittani's influence because of what happened between Goons and Star Fraction. Smaller alliances should have the ability to contract as many allies as they need.. without financial cost.


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.


Of course you are right. However, there is public opinion to consider. Every time I sign on to TS or Eve voice whether it be here or WoT, everyone is talking about how "the Goons have bent CCP".

In order to combat that erroneous perception why not leave wardecs that exist as mutual w/ allies before the patch as is and all subsequent decs follow the new rule?

I think that would make everyone happy.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#207 - 2012-06-14 13:48:40 UTC
The D1ngo wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
I highly disagree with this:

Quote:
There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:

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


I think this point alone discourages smaller alliances and corporations from defending against large, generally better funded, alliances. And to be honest, this sounds too much like the Mittani's influence because of what happened between Goons and Star Fraction. Smaller alliances should have the ability to contract as many allies as they need.. without financial cost.


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.


Of course you are right. However, there is public opinion to consider. Every time I sign on to TS or Eve voice whether it be here or WoT, everyone is talking about how "the Goons have bent CCP".

In order to combat that erroneous perception why not leave wardecs that exist as mutual w/ allies before the patch as is and all subsequent decs follow the new rule?

I think that would make everyone happy.

Because the game isn't just about goonswarm? And doing that would leave a lot of alliances and corporations who actually care in positions they don't want to be.

Plus, the same tinfoil hat idiots shouting "CCP corruption" would just start complaining that CCP left goons with their free forever war. A blatant sign of favouritism. Nevermind the inherent contradictions, or complete 180 on their opinions, these idiots are used to backpedaling and making stuff up.

[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]

XXDadXX
Intersteller Masons
#208 - 2012-06-14 13:55:59 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


Having weathered a week long war dec from a small corp that sought ISK in exchange for leaving us alone to run high sec incursions I have to say I was surprised by the offers from large and small corps/alliances to help via the ally system. With the new changes I suspect there will be no market for small merc corps - who is going to pay to hire them when a larger group is happy to be your ally and camp trading systems?

The law of unintended consequences is alive and well here. I do not think these changes will be any different. Small defender corps will likely doc up or fade away (despite the marks on their resume). Small merc corps will not be sought because bigger is cheaper and maybe better.

I suspect your initial intent was not achieved the first time. I do not think you will achieve it with this update.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#209 - 2012-06-14 14:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


I don't see any problems with that honestly, its ~content~ generated by the players, blobbing is everywhere, in warfare, alliances, why not wardecs? Or are you saying it isn't ~fair~ that attacks bite off more then they can chew.

People want to fight a certain someone, they go ahead and join a war that is made public by someone who is looking for friends with big guns. It doesn't have to be free offcourse, but it certainly doesn't have to cost 5 trillion.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#210 - 2012-06-14 14:10:01 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.

Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.

NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair".

So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.


Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve.

(if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets).

So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help.

It doesn't help merc corps, when indie corps instead of limiting their options and choosing the "best" people for the job choose to just allow anyone into the war.

The whole idea of the merc marketplace is that a small, but rich, corp attacked by a big bunch of griefers can hire mercs as allies. Under your system you're just back to free allies and a free goon forever war.


The example you mention will work exactly the same in my proposal as it will in the 1.1 change. The indy corp will have to pay for allies hence if you think it'll work in 1.1 , it'll work in my proposal just fine.

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

Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#211 - 2012-06-14 14:30:11 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
By the by, where is the effect of wardecs among null dwellers? .. sure there is no sec. hit and such out in the sticks, but declaring on an enemy is just plain old good form. Have it affect some small but essential part of a sov war for instance, such as halving anchor/online time of SBU (not that I condone the use of SBU/EHP Grind mechanics *spit*, used for example only).

Y'know, that's actually not that bad an idea... A formal war dec logged in DED increases SBU effectiveness, cutting the sov grind to just a single reinforcement cycle on TCUs and IHUBs (but not outposts, which as much larger structures, can be thought of as having better self-repair mechanisms).
None ofthe Above
#212 - 2012-06-14 14:44:03 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
CCP Tuxford wrote:
Kismeteer wrote:

Quote:

20 allies = 5 Trillion



Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P


Is that a cap at most a 5 trillion ISK fee (mind boggles)? Or a hard cap of 20 allies?

How can you justify such a high fee for adding an ally? I really find it incomprehensible and clearly punitive.

Like the original open ended wardec cost based on target size I really think this merc-protectionist fee needs to be capped at something semi-reasonable, if you are going to have it at all.

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

Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#213 - 2012-06-14 15:05:54 UTC
Why does it have to scale at all is more the question. I think simply having the fee set at a sensible level (20 mill) would be a good incentive to stop ally spamming. We all want the mercs getting the contracts, not the current situation.
CCP, can we ask why Allies aren't allow in the mutual war? Especially if given the two week abandon option. Personally I think this is a really good option. It also places a risk on defender and attacker for making mutual. If a defender has hundreds of allies, makes it mutual and then they all bail on them, I can see it being a great climb down for them and very embarrassing. Similarly, it's good to give the attacker a risk (but not a major one).
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#214 - 2012-06-14 15:54:37 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
...The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with....

If that is the intended mechanic then surely it would make more sense to limit a corps to having ally status in two or maybe three wars at any given time .. this new fiasco will require the newt (small being griefed by big being most common due to dec costs) to not only potentially having to pay mercs for help but also fork over cash to Concord for the privilege.

My favourite fix is simply to allow infinite and free allies, but allow an ally to only join one war.

This would mean mercs would need to WANT to work for the aggressed party, and that may largely come down to an ISK incentive to do so.

I'm sure plenty of people would still dogpile GSF, but I don't think that's a bad thing for any of the involved parties on either side. For the majority case, mercs will be picking their ally of the week based on what the ally has to offer, whether that's helping E-Uni pro-bono or fighting against the 0rphanage for 500mil a week is really up to them.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2012-06-14 15:59:42 UTC
XXDadXX wrote:
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


Having weathered a week long war dec from a small corp that sought ISK in exchange for leaving us alone to run high sec incursions I have to say I was surprised by the offers from large and small corps/alliances to help via the ally system. With the new changes I suspect there will be no market for small merc corps - who is going to pay to hire them when a larger group is happy to be your ally and camp trading systems?

The law of unintended consequences is alive and well here. I do not think these changes will be any different. Small defender corps will likely doc up or fade away (despite the marks on their resume). Small merc corps will not be sought because bigger is cheaper and maybe better.

I suspect your initial intent was not achieved the first time. I do not think you will achieve it with this update.


This is actually something I'm a bit worried about. I know that Incursion fleets do not allow war dec'd people in them (and for good reason). I have the strong suspicion that people will start rolling alts, create a corp for their alt, and just war dec random incursion corps to blackmail them for isk to end the war. There is no recourse to this, so this could end incursion corps (the antithesis of CCP's push to get players out of the npc corps).

And, yes, I'm considering doing this. Let's be honest, it promises some rather impressive income for next to no effort (don't even have to train the alt, just keep it docked and continue cycling war decs).
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#216 - 2012-06-14 15:59:49 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.


Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.

Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.

No it's not the solution you proposed, because in your very next sentence you went and spilled the same crap about equal numbers.

All your solution would mean is that every war (in the common case) would gravitate towards equal numbers all the time, which is completely silly and open to gaming in utterly broken ways.

EG:

50 industrialists want to get back at a 5man corp of people that have been greifing and so wardec them. Industrialists have about 5-10 PVP capable pilots so this seems like a good idea.

Next day, several corps containing 45 PVPers have dog-piled into the war for free and the industrialists go back to ship spinning because their plan has been defeated.

You can keep on with your idea all you want, but you will never get any traction on it because it's completely silly. The only situation in which it makes sense is if you need massive numbers of allies to make up a huge number differential, which is ALL about you and your OVER 9000 baddies and nothing to do with proper mechanics.

Everyone can see it, as well.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#217 - 2012-06-14 16:03:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Jade Constantine wrote:
It really isn't an exploit. I recommend you check the Inferno devblog on war. CCP intended this mechanic - they have probably been surprised at the way its been used however, and weren't expecting people to band together so effectively to fight nullsec aggression with the system.

Given you've all banded together so heroically, would you like to tell me:

- The fleet composition your allies fly together in. Do you FC the coalition forces? Who does?
- Their timezones, how do you ensure full coverage?
- Which voice comms you use?
- When leading an attack on GSF do you feel your allies significantly help offset the weight of numbers?
- The particular challenges in coordinating 40+ allies all with their own sub-command structures, because it's really a first.

Should make for an entertaining read.

By the way, how do you feel that 25 of your allies have spent much of their time fighting wars against my 15man corp of aggressors? Or the two wardecs on my alt corp? Or the other 30+ wars they signed up to? How are you splitting up your time?

Can you drop your pathetic rhetoric, please, and atleast admit none of your "allies" are doing anything other than using you as a meal ticket on a free wardec?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#218 - 2012-06-14 16:30:00 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

My favourite fix is simply to allow infinite and free allies, but allow an ally to only join one war.

This would mean mercs would need to WANT to work for the aggressed party, and that may largely come down to an ISK incentive to do so.

I'm sure plenty of people would still dogpile GSF, but I don't think that's a bad thing for any of the involved parties on either side. For the majority case, mercs will be picking their ally of the week based on what the ally has to offer, whether that's helping E-Uni pro-bono or fighting against the 0rphanage for 500mil a week is really up to them.



See, thats not actually a bad idea.

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

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#219 - 2012-06-14 16:35:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Khanh'rhh wrote:

No it's not the solution you proposed, because in your very next sentence you went and spilled the same crap about equal numbers.

All your solution would mean is that every war (in the common case) would gravitate towards equal numbers all the time, which is completely silly and open to gaming in utterly broken ways.

EG:

50 industrialists want to get back at a 5man corp of people that have been greifing and so wardec them. Industrialists have about 5-10 PVP capable pilots so this seems like a good idea.

Next day, several corps containing 45 PVPers have dog-piled into the war for free and the industrialists go back to ship spinning because their plan has been defeated.


That would cost the industrialists exactly the same amount in my proposed system as it would in the CCP 1.1 patch. I'm not realy seeing what your argument is.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
You can keep on with your idea all you want, but you will never get any traction on it because it's completely silly. The only situation in which it makes sense is if you need massive numbers of allies to make up a huge number differential, which is ALL about you and your OVER 9000 baddies and nothing to do with proper mechanics.Everyone can see it, as well.


Well to the contrary really. The huge majority of unaffilitated posts on eve online forums, and in comments to the many blogs on the subject seem to believe the proposal I have made is more sensible than the change CCP have put onto SISI. Generally the only people on your side of the argument is well ... goons/test and various EvilMAD CSM'sOops who have pretty much said they are opposing my suggestion because they "hate jade/jade showed them no RESPECT/let's REBUKE that mean jade" (and presumably they hope that the CFC throws them some sympathy votes next year so they can go back to the feeding trough in 2013)

I'm getting the strong impression you still don't really get what it is I am suggesting because all your examples of why "it won't work" end up with it working precisely the same as the 1.1 patch on SISI will.

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

Evil Incarn8
Evil's League of Evil
#220 - 2012-06-14 16:37:56 UTC
Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?

Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).