These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2012-06-13 17:59:25 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Manssell wrote:
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


PLEASE
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-06-13 18:02:15 UTC
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Manssell wrote:
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


PLEASE



Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment.
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2012-06-13 18:14:20 UTC
Amdor Renevat wrote:
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Manssell wrote:
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


PLEASE



Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment.


yes but adding some fees to deter a broken system in the meantime had to happen dude the unlimited allies was obviously a broken mechanic that was being abused... implementing a treaty system actually requires some indepth programming and ui
Rengerel en Distel
#64 - 2012-06-13 18:15:22 UTC
Amdor Renevat wrote:
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Manssell wrote:
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


PLEASE



Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment.


This is pretty much what everyone thought the merc marketplace was going to be like from the start. I think most everyone has been pretty disappointed on the iterations so far, or lack thereof, without much discussion of the plan going forward. The marketplace should have been first, then wardec changes, etc. This just seems like another inventory UI debacle where function follows form. "Make it pretty, then make it work" is a horrible game design philosophy.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-06-13 18:19:42 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Jypsie wrote:
Selissa Shadoe wrote:
From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it

Quote:
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair.

Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread.


This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown.

Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example:

A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies.

Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies.



Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix".

I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.


I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games.
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2012-06-13 18:20:08 UTC
Thanks CCP for the hard work at fixing broken game mechanics. Keep it up ^_^
Tarkoauc
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-06-13 18:20:27 UTC
The increasing cost scale is helping the large aggressors against the small war target.

I would propose that the cost scale only goes into effect when the war target has accumulated the same number of allies so that on both sides the same number of combatants are active. As the victim, you get get as many friends until you are as strong as the agrressor.

Mercs still have the offensive war options. They should have plenty to do there.
Ibrahim Khashanti
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2012-06-13 18:22:01 UTC
I'm not that up on in-game lore, but aren't wardecs essentially bribes paid to CONCORD and shouldn't CONCORD have some incentive in not letting 2000 player entities dec 2 player entities and vice versa?

Also, IMO, since CONCORD, in some respects, operates with the permission of the four empires, shouldn't influence with them have some sort of impact?

My take on allies is CONCORD should make wars more expensive depending on how lopsided the size of the various entities are under the auspices of "preserving balance". Smaller entities could higher allies up to the size of the aggressor and then it would start costing money. Or perhaps some outfit with very high empire standings could "pay off" the empire in question to get the war invalidated in that empire alone (but not the other three).

Just my 0.02 ISK.
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-06-13 18:22:06 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Amdor Renevat wrote:
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Manssell wrote:
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


PLEASE



Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment.


This is pretty much what everyone thought the merc marketplace was going to be like from the start. I think most everyone has been pretty disappointed on the iterations so far, or lack thereof, without much discussion of the plan going forward. The marketplace should have been first, then wardec changes, etc. This just seems like another inventory UI debacle where function follows form. "Make it pretty, then make it work" is a horrible game design philosophy.


its not the inventory UI, the inventory UI was good just buggy as f*ck and missing features... still mssing the damn shortcuts but anyway i digress

The war system was released... sort of like out of order, as you said it was shuffled around ...

but then again they probably couldn't have released a treaty system based on the broken ass old wardec system if they were releasing a new one, and it was probably too much code to postpone everything until treaties were ready as well... so what we had was a revised wardec system with a stupid ally exploit, that is now patched though is pissing people off because they can't have a billion allies...

Personally i hope we see the treatie system sooner than later, that way people can finally breath easy

But then again i also hope that we see multi-type wardecs (Null Only / Null + Low / All Sec Status systems) so that nullsec alliances cna war each other with nice ingame statistics tracking without having to deal with an insane wardec costs and screwing there own highsec logistics...
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-06-13 18:24:10 UTC
Tarkoauc wrote:
The increasing cost scale is helping the large aggressors against the small war target.

I would propose that the cost scale only goes into effect when the war target has accumulated the same number of allies so that on both sides the same number of combatants are active. As the victim, you get get as many friends until you are as strong as the agrressor.

Mercs still have the offensive war options. They should have plenty to do there.


For the love of god!, YOU CAN"T CALL YOURSELF A SMALL GUY VS A BIG ALLIANCE WHEN YOUR SMALL ALLIANCE HAS 9000 allies!!?!?!?!?!

At that point you've now expanded your war to such a scale that your now the BIG GUY!

Stop acting like just because you were a 100 man corp wardecing a 9000 man alliance that your the little guy when you recruited 10000 allies!
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-06-13 18:24:48 UTC
Going from unlimited allies to one is simply a knee jerk reaction to a problem that could have been postponed until a true solution was completed. Some moderation could be used and something like 5-8 allies are free before you start having to pay. While not perfect it's better then the constant full throttle - BRAKE - full throttle approach we are seeing.

Marketplace should have been first before any changes were made to the war dec system. People were at least used to 'what was' instead of being subjected to an incomplete 'yet to come'. After the marketplace we should have seen the treaty system. Then the last step should have been changing the mechanics of how wars are initiated.

So much focus on making mercs happy when there are some pretty blatant issues in other aspects of the game affecting even more people *cough- highsec miners- cough*.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-06-13 18:24:52 UTC
A good change on the path towards a properly balanced wardec system.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-06-13 18:25:04 UTC
Tarkoauc wrote:
The increasing cost scale is helping the large aggressors against the small war target.

I would propose that the cost scale only goes into effect when the war target has accumulated the same number of allies so that on both sides the same number of combatants are active. As the victim, you get get as many friends until you are as strong as the agrressor.

Mercs still have the offensive war options. They should have plenty to do there.


Null alliances dec'ing high sec alliances/corps is complete silliness. It isn't like the entire Goon alliance has deployed to attack Jade. The ally system, if anything, is attracting more of the null pilots to roam into high sec in search of targets. That's a bad thing. I'm still baffled that Jade is against this 1.1 change which, let's be honest, is for the good of high sec in the long run.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#74 - 2012-06-13 18:26:40 UTC
I like the changes and the prices.

+1 from a merc.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Dezolf
DAX Action Stance
#75 - 2012-06-13 18:28:20 UTC
This thread needs more tinfoil.

Also, I disagree with the pricing scheme (as many others), and agree that a different solution should be found/used.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#76 - 2012-06-13 18:28:38 UTC
AMirrorDarkly wrote:
The choice to sign up allies or employing mercenaries to humiliate the aggressor by forcing a humble pie surrender is no more!

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
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.

The idea that Goon leadership (not necessarily the rank-and-file) is afraid of being globally vulnerable to anyone not Goon is questionable, given that their MO is to troll everyone and their mothers to begin with. By the same token, though, Jade's response to the war dec was quite an ingenious solution to the problem, and exactly the sort of "We never expected that, but it's kinda cool" emergent behavior that also gave rise to things like jetcan mining and insta bookmarks. Personally, I'd have rather had CCP go, "Oh, Snap!!" and then sit back and watch what developed for a while before slapping together what appears to be a knee-jerk response. This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2012-06-13 18:32:55 UTC
Atum wrote:
This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly?

As mentioned in the test server thread, the reason this is being dealt with isn't so much to block jade's attempt to let us shoot everyone in highsec, but to allow actual mercs to market their services. Since that's a major feature of this expansion, mercs being unable to charge a fee is the sort of broken mechanic that needs a quick CCP response.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Blawrf McTaggart
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2012-06-13 18:33:02 UTC
Unsure if I appreciate the fixing of broken game mechanics or the smacking down of Jade "ebrothel" Constantine more. Both are p cool.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#79 - 2012-06-13 18:34:30 UTC
Dabigredboat wrote:
I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games.


Something tells me Soundwave doesn't need you to defend his e-feelings.

We have had a spirited disagreement over a game mechanic. It is possible for adults to do this. Perhaps its something you could investigate yourself?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Aleph Phi
Foxes Counting Chickens
#80 - 2012-06-13 18:35:08 UTC
devblog wrote:
Lastly, there is a new skill out there, called Armor Resistance Phasing. It reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners (or, well, the one that currently exists) by 10% per level. This skill costs ca. 600k, has a skill rank of 5 and is sold wherever good skill books are sold (i.e. the usual places).


Reduced Cycle time? While I'm all for a skill to make reactive armor hardeners adapt faster, this isn't a good way to go about it. Here's why:

  • Neutralization vulnerability. A module with a shorter cycle time is far more prone to being deactivated by capacitor warfare -- particularly when you're relying on a capacitor booster to keep your hardeners running. This is particularly critical on the reactive hardener, where deactivation means that adaptation has to start all over again.
  • 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.

    P.S.: Did you mean to make the reactive armor hardener stacking penalized against damage controls? Neither module makes any mention of stacking penalties, but they most definitely act against each other.