These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Changes to War Mechanics

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#41 - 2012-03-29 15:02:47 UTC


There have been discussions about having some kind of upper cap on the cost of war decs.

I think a diminishing return needs to be looked into rather than a cap. Basically, it starts at a relatively high point, and then starts to teeter off. So to start a war might be 500k for up to 5 people, then it starts to drop incrementally down to 1000+ people. By the time you get to 1000 people, the cost might be as low as 250k per person.

The price should definitely go up by member count, but enough that it doesn't become absurd at some point.

A cap will create an artificial limit to the size of alliances. At some point they'll just say "Hey, let's make 2 alliances so those people war deccing us have to pay extra extra more money to get us all! muahahahhaha 3vil Carebears in Space.".

Anyways. I know we like to keep things simple around EVE now adays with the charts and the graphs and stuff. But it needs to gradiate down slowly as numbers go up rather than cap out or stay at a high rate all the way.



Where I am.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#42 - 2012-03-29 15:03:17 UTC
Hope whis will work out. Smile

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#43 - 2012-03-29 15:03:25 UTC
war, war never changes. oh wait.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-03-29 15:04:24 UTC
First a couple suggestions:

Wars declared to be mutual should have a cap on cost so large alliances can use the killboard features. I would also suggest a free type of war called a null-sec war dec so that alliances can use the features when claiming space.

Also, the cost of war against an unwilling target should rise over time to prevent an endless griefing potential. There needs to be some protection for smaller targets. Right now, this system is so heavily biased in favor of large alliances it's really astounding that anyone at CCP saw it as balanced.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#45 - 2012-03-29 15:05:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Karim alRashid wrote:
"Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends."

I don't think this is a good design.
In fact you're not an allies, sharing a common goal, you are a contractor, a hired mercenary.

Such contracts should have a term. At the end of the term, both parties choose to continue or not the contract.



I agree with this. Mercs/Allies should be allowed to continue or discontinue support on a weekly basis when the war dec fee is paid.

Also, I agree with the person above saying this system is too easy for large privateer groups to war dec small groups. I think high sec alliances will start to form up anyways to protect themselves, but there needs to be something protecting the little guy from the big guy to some degree.

Where I am.
Marshiro
MOE Corp
#46 - 2012-03-29 15:10:36 UTC
I like Dierdra Vaal's line of incentive thinking, but I would make the incentives this way:

1. There are multiple levels of wardec, corresponding to intended scale of conflict and isk cap for ending the war in #2
2. If the Defender inflicts enough damage to the attacker (regardless of efficiency), the defenders then are given the right to end the war if wanted. They could end the war immediately after this is done, without waiting until the end of the week or whatever counts as wardec cycles.

This way, defenders have some incentives in undocking and quickly ending the war, while attackers have to attack carefully to keep the wardec alive.

If we go by k/d efficiency, then the most logical response for bad defenders is to never undock, or gank one ship with help with a ton of neutral forces (even suicide gank and just have the in corp char whore the mail) and then stay docked up for the rest of the week. In other words, totally lame.

With my design, bad defenders may decide to fight it out anyways and lose ships left and right, so they could end the war quickly and get back to carebearing. Skilled corps are rewarded for killing wardecers fast while not losing billions upon billions in the process. Good corps can do the "we kill 3 billion aggressor ships in 2 days while maintaining 90% efficiency" thing is good enough. Alternatively, if defender are good enough to keep the aggressors from attacking much, then defenders can go back to whatever they were doing before without being harassed much, and aggressors wastes their wardec money.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#47 - 2012-03-29 15:12:45 UTC
There's a lot of good stuff in here, but a lot is still vague.
I will reserve judgement until EVE University can be succesfully wardecced P
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-03-29 15:14:17 UTC
Mmmmm cross posting froma locked thread \o/

wait..... wouldn't this make fewer larger corps more appealing?

So instead of 1000 x 10 man mining corps they'd band together and make 10 x 1000 man corps.
how is that bad?

Larger corps needs space to live too, so, erm... null sec where wars are pointless bar catching people in Jita.

I've not read the whole thing but as far as an idea to get people in a MMO to work together.... it ain't bad from a "I only just heard about this" point of view.




If you're paying an alliance\corp money to join, you're doing it wrong.

Call me weird if you like but to me it sounds good.
People who want a solo spaceship game should play freelancer or X3.
People who want to massively multiplayer should play a MMO

You can also "be a part of something" and "own it" even if you join a big corp, you just have to be willing to put in the effort and not be some kind of lazy entitled douche.



On top of all that reposting,

This is a good thing.
Those that want to casual solo industry can stick in NPC corps.
Those that want to get into the guts of it and require thigns like pos's etc, well tehy get protection from the corp they join.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2012-03-29 15:14:45 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:


Also, I agree with the person above saying this system is too easy for large privateer groups to war dec small groups. I think high sec alliances will start to form up anyways to protect themselves


Yep. This will just give rise to more mega alliances. Are massive power blocks really desireable? Does it make Eve more dynamic? I don't think it will.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-03-29 15:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
Well done for nerfing 'SHITBIRD' corps from ever war deccing EVE UNI again

this was the whole reason for the War Dec changes right?

Being serious for a minute, valuing a war dec by the amount of people in the corp you are deccing isnt neccesarily in itself a problem, valuing each player at half a million is when you are a small corp deccing a big one.

(at the wardec round table corp wardec was given a 20mil isk flat fee plus half mil per person in that corp. which can soon add up for inflated corps with alts, etc)

You need to make it still viable for a small corp to wardec a larger one without bankrupting the small corp.

Also, your crimewatch ideas are very much in need of revision before you break hisec.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#51 - 2012-03-29 15:26:07 UTC
My only real concern is the price variance between corp size. My corp routinely goes to war with groups that are easily 5-10 times our size, and that can add up real quick for just 3 people. In essence the idea will actually make it easier for larger corps to dec smaller ones and harder for the smaller corps to dec the larger.
In turn I believe that the aggressor size should also count towards the war cost, lowering the cost if you are flying with fewer on your own side and increasing as you go up until you reach equilibrium with the opposing side. Of course with this idea many corps may get the idea to boot players, dec, and than re-hire them to cut the cost of the dec. To counter this I would propose that for each new hire on the aggressor side an automatic charge would occur to compensate for the new player or the dec is nullified. Rules for the defender remain the same.
The base fee being increased I think is a great idea for an increased isk sink.



And as long as I am typing I would like to toss out an idea for the alliance dec shield.

If a corp is dec'd and they move into an alliance, the dec I feel should actually remain with the corp. If the alliance wishes to help then they could either be hired as allies or they could start a dec of their own. Likewise if the defending corp then leaves the alliance, the dec continues to stay with them instead of being dumped off at the alliance. However, if you dec a corp that is currently with an alliance the normal rules apply and you will dec the entire alliance. If a corp within the alliance leaves, your dec remains with the alliance.
Not that I am against more war targets, and in fact I welcome it, I just feel this could be a better way to prevent the increased war funds from being wasted in general.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#52 - 2012-03-29 15:30:58 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Quote:
the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of at a whim's notice.


While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly.

The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war.

Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.

Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely.

As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:
1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec.
2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports.
3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it.
4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war.

This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control!

Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Quote:
Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.


This, combined with the fact that you’re dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts?

Quote:
Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier?
A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone.


This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.

Basically...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-03-29 15:31:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
Quoting from the 'Wardec round table' thread regarding new war dec costs
istyn wrote:
Prince_Kobol wrote:

Just been reading the proposed war dec costs, is it me or does it basically mean the the large alliances will essentially be immune to any war dec because of the massive costs involved?

If this is the case the the smaller corps are just going to get hit even harder before.

For me if 1 person wanted to war dec a medium to large high sec alliance he should be able to, with the proposed costs this is just not going to be feasible any more.


Biggest alliance is Goonswarm at 8,057 members. Based on their being in no wars, war dec cost would be 50m+(8057*500k), which totals up to 4,078,500,000 per week. Such a huge amount could affect merc contract work such as disrupting null-sec logistics like Moar Tears, etc. do with shooting at freighters in high sec.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#54 - 2012-03-29 15:32:05 UTC
While I couldn't care less about large rich alliances wardecing small groups,

I'm greatly concerned with the ability of small, poor corps (let's say me, my two friends and our two alts) to wardec large corporations and alliances.

This, of course, depends on the actual formula for the wardec cost so, I'm surprised if you haven't figured out the formula yet or you don't publish it - it's essential for the discussion.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Severian Carnifex
#55 - 2012-03-29 15:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
@ CCP

Please HEAR THE WORRIED PLAYERS and what they say/ask at the end of your FanFest presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u0H3WA_UYA

We are all worried by the same things.

You are making it to easy to grief other players, smaller corps/alliances, industry players and all others that just do not want to PvP.
Do you want to make that ppl quit?


You did not give any love to indy players, you just make their lives harder.
For years no any new things or balancing, and making easier to gank indy players and now this...


But this is not the problem of only indy players, this is problem of all "little persons" in the EVE.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#56 - 2012-03-29 15:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
some drunkard CCP wrote:
Q: How long will wars last?
A: As long as the aggressor pays every week and no one surrenders (or no surrender offer is accepted), then a war can last forever.


Are you serious?

You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?

Are you kidding us, or is just that you still are intoxicated after Fanfest? Evil
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#57 - 2012-03-29 15:46:42 UTC
As other people have stated, I am worried about cost being tied to corp population. Your blog stated it was worried about people war dec shielding and shedding. But then you are building in defense for bloated corps for free in the new system. I would like to see a reasonable hard cap on war dec costs myself
eidenjunior
Perkone
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-03-29 15:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: eidenjunior
will it be posible to go to war without being able to shoot in high-sec?

this is mostly for 0.0 alliance where you like to be able to use the war overveiew thingy.



Severian Carnifex wrote:
@ CCP

Please HEAR THE WORRIED PLAYERS and what they say/ask at the end of your FanFest presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u0H3WA_UYA

We are all worried by the same things.

You are making it to easy to grief other players, smaller corps/alliances, industry players and all others that just do not want to PvP.
Do you want to make that ppl quit?


You did not give any love to indy players, you just make their lives harder.
For years no any new things or balancing, and making easier to gank indy players and now this...


But this is not the problem of only indy players, this is problem of all "little persons" in the EVE.


who wanted to war dec a corp with 1-15ppl? where you need pay 20mil(maybe make the minium higher) + the fee per member. there is no comitmet from the defenders do anything.

the war dec function have been there since i start playing eve. this is not news that you can be war dec.
gfldex
#59 - 2012-03-29 15:47:41 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
You did not give any love to indy players, you just make their lives harder.


Bad carebear corps will indeed be driven out of business (corps, not players!). That means bigger market shares for those that survive. I would be really carefull as a smallish griefer corp to declare war on somebody who trucks around with cargo worth billions in his freighter. That fellow can afford wardecs that the avg. small griefer corp can't. As a result it's very well possible that those small griefer corps are being driven out of business because being stuck in station for one week sucks, even for alts. You don't pay for an alt account to have it docked, do you?

Instead of focusing on whining you may want to use your brain to figure out how you can take advantage of the upcoming changes.

There where plenty of corps that could handle wardecs before all the wardec nerfs. If you can't you may want to look for proper leadership.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#60 - 2012-03-29 15:48:01 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

You mean that as long as someone wants to grief any smallholder, he can do so by just paying the bill, even if the war is non-consensual?


Not at all.

Just paying the bill does not constitute "griefing".

Actually undocking and shooting their ships also does not constitute "griefing", it's just non-consensual PvP.

I hope this makes it clear.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos