These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Avila Cracko
#821 - 2012-04-18 13:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Avila Cracko
Ill quote something here for other thread:

Liam Mirren wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:


Actually, the proposed ideas on fanfest (and round table issues afterwards) really show that the guys working on it should go do something else, like revamping mining or something. I know this all sounds harsh but I have zero respect for people who decide to implement changes to things they have no clue on.


And you know whats the funnest part???
CCP put one whole DEV team on WAR decs.
And whole team wants to solve all problems with tweeks in few simple formulas.
Sorry, but I don't see where is DEV time spent here.

When i heard that CCP put DEV team on this problem i thought there will be whole revamp of War Decs and we are getting nothing.

And you saw FanFest presentation?
DEV that hold that part of presentations didnt even wanted to be there
and all people that asked him questions on the end were concerned and got the same kind of "no answer".
And you could clearly see that DEV had no idea what he is talking about.

When person who do the job is not into it, you get nothing.

Sorry but i don't see that any real work is getting done here.


Quite. Mind you, I'm not "attacking" the guy in question, it's nothing personal. I'm raging against the decision to put someone in charge of stuff he has no affinity with, something so important and fundamental in EVE as wars.


I am not attacking anybody.
I am just disappointed with everything thats (not) happening.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#822 - 2012-04-18 13:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Grikath wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
You were willing to be forced to learn combat PvP. I am not. And if I am in the wrong game, then CCP should be clear about it and remove everything not related to combat PvP, call their game "blow spaceships online" and market it to the appropiate target.


Ooohhh classic entitlementalism in action...Roll

Why should CCP have to do anything, especially since all your posts prove you are a classic case of "want to have my cake and eat it" ?

Your corp exists, as it clearly states, to avoid NPC taxes. You are, however, not willing to pay the price that comes with this in the form of player interaction you find unwelcome, and complain about the "lack of consideration" from CCP and others who clearly see this.

So yes, you are indeed in the wrong game. Stop trying to blame everyone else for the mistake you made and leave, or man up, and accept the risks that come with the rewards.


This account was cancelled months ago and will expire on April 30. There is nothing left in EVE that interests me.

And you guess what? The first goal i set to myself in EVE was PvP related. I wished to drive griefers out of the game by making their life miserable, blowing them on sight until they wouldn't dare to grief any longer. Then it turned that the game is griefers' paradise as retaliation mechanics are broken to the point of non-existence... and whenever CCP attempts to fix mechanics, they make griefing even easier and more effective. Roll
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#823 - 2012-04-18 14:04:31 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

This account was cancelled months ago and will expire on April 30. There is nothing left in EVE that interests me.

good, then stop posting
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#824 - 2012-04-18 18:20:08 UTC
roboto212 wrote:
roboto212 wrote:
New war dec mechanic that works(IMHO). This would still use the changes as proposed by CCP for inferno but removes the increase cost based on player numbers on defenders side. Also adds a new mechanic as listed. And limits the number of allies per war to 1

War dec structure attacker sets total goal value of assets destroyed to an isk value ranging from 1-x.
This number is multiplied by 1.5 and resulting number equals defenders target isk assets value to destroy. The number set by attacker is then divided by a number determined by ccp of say 5.
The surrender value is then multiplied by 20-30% again determined by ccp resulting in a bond value. This amount must be paid to concord as escrow on top of a flat war dec cost of 20mil for corps and 50mil for alliances.

How the war progresses for a defender. If the defender destroys assets equal to there target value they then may at any time chose to end the war resulting in a 24 hour timer. If the defender chose to finish the war for the week then Half the bonded would then be deposited into there corp or alliance wallet. Defender may bring in 1 Allie in to the war.

How the war progresses for the attacker. If the attacking corp destroys there target amount and defender does not destroy there target amount they receive the full bond back. If they fail to destroy there target value as well as the defender they receive half the bond back and the other half is forfeited to concord. If both parties destroy target amount then half is paid to defender and half is returned to aggressor.

In case of war being set mutual in the first 24 hours then value to be destroyed is set to infinity. And no allies can be invited to join the defender. Wars can not be set mutual after the first 24 hours.

At the end of the week if the attacker wishes to continue the war a new bond is posted equal the value of the previous on and weekly total of assets destroyed is reset.

Additionally any player leaving a corporation during the war would remain a war target for 24 hours and would be in a 24 hour stasis from rejoining the corporation or any corporation in the alliance.
As an example if A declared war on B then A would set target value of assets to be destroyed. Say 2.5bil this would set B's target value at 3.75bil and the bond at 150mil plus war dec fee of 20 or 50 mil depending on if a was a corp or alliance.

A larger example would be A sets target at 200bil. Then B would have to destroy 300bil with a bond of 12bil plus the 20 or 50 mil war dec fee.


How it would work for low sec so they would have a reason to use it there would be value of assets destroyed would only count for 40-60% of there value for goal tracking purposes.

For null sec assets destroyed would be valued at 0% for goals so that war dec tracking could be used cheaply by null sec or not with out concern for expensive war dec cost they have no need of in null.

To sum it up target goals for both sides. If defender fights they can get half the isk or end the war early and cost the attacker ISK. If the aggressor fights effectively and sets proper goals they can get there war cheaply and meet there objectives.

some people have suggested removing the surrender option and i am considering it to very large extent.


quoted with suggested changes made


I am not sure there should be an ally limit - because as someone has stated, the aggressor generally has the advantage. The fact that there can be an unknown number of allies responding changes that, it adds risk into the system. Now aggressors need to gather some more intel, check dec logs, etc. and see who corp x's friends are.

It should certainly not be limited to one ally only.

Argus
ShipToaster
#825 - 2012-04-18 19:23:06 UTC
One of the questions artfully dodged by a certain CCP superstar was "Why should it cost me more to wardec an alliance than their monthly fees?". Well, why?

For every ally the defender brings so can the attacker. For a true ISK sink charge for everyone.

.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#826 - 2012-04-19 03:16:15 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

- If a younger or smaller corp wants to start a war, then the price should be scaled down accordingly.


Easily abused.

a) Form corp with 1-day old alt
b) Declare war for cheap since you're "young"
c) Bring in more experienced members to actually prosecute the war
d) Rinse-repeat next week / month

Easily fixed - during a war, which you have declared, you are not allowed to add new corp members.

This limitation, ofc, would not apply to the defending corp.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#827 - 2012-04-19 03:45:00 UTC
Enkill Eridos wrote:

1.) If your corp doesn't want to lose a high sec pos they shouldn't have bought it.

Not a relevent argument. Indy corps tend to run away from wardecs 'cause they can't or don't want to try to defend their POS. If they don't jump behind an alliance decshield, then they take down the POSes, dock in station, and don't play EVE for a week, or just outright quit out of frustration. This is a rather pointless result for everyone involved, incl. the wardeccing corp.

If you make the POSes immune from wardec, then perhaps the indy corp players will be willing to come out and PVP, since their POS operations can continue without fear of disruption.

And, in any case, while POS warfare in null sec is a grind, POS warfare in high sec is utterly painful beyond belief. Do you have any idea of how many battleships you need to take down a large POS in high sec?

Enkill Eridos wrote:

2.) I am hurt that you imply that all mercenaries will require an arm and a leg to help a newer corp consisting of primarily noobs. When this system comes out, my corp will take contracts (provided we are not in another null sec alliance that is scared of high sec wars) based on how much you can pay. Of course it will be assumed you can take care of the loss bill after the war is done and your carebearing can resume. Just me doing that makes your well thought out and articulate points on what smaller and younger corps can do kind of moot.

Assuming that a younger corp can afford to pay enough to cover your losses is rather optimistic.

Let's say that a 20-man corp, with 2-year old players, decides to wardec a 5-man noob corp, consisting of 1-month old players. The older corp is using T2 ships - say, HACs and logi's - and happen to be experienced in PVP. The noob corp currently grinds out about 20M ISK per month, and considers themselves to be doing not so bad, until they get wardecced.

How exactly do you plan to fight the older corp, and yet recover your losses from the noob corp? Are you planning to fly only T1 frigs and cruisers, with T1 fittings? The noob corp probably won't be able to afford much more than that.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#828 - 2012-04-19 04:30:43 UTC
Another thought on the proposed "ally" system:

(Apologies if this has been posted previously, but 40+ pages of posts are difficult to go through, in detail)

If a corp/alliance can be "allied" to an unlimited number of wars, at no cost, then what is to prevent *every* defending corp from bringing in the Goons, or another large alliance, as an ally - esp. if the Goons (or other alliance) offer a "low cost" ally program, just to have more Concord-free reds available to pop in high sec (and perhaps generate a bit of passive income).

This effectively creates the "ally" shield, where any small-to-medium aggressor corp would be instantly outnumbered, since they cannot bring in cost-free allies of their own.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#829 - 2012-04-19 05:10:09 UTC
Yet another random idea:

High sec is home to a lot of market alts, which just sit in station and rarely undock. Many of these alts even belong to NPC corps (such as my forum alt) on a more-or-less permanent basis.

What if these alts were organized into a high sec wardec shield, on call to join a defender corp, when needed?

A defender corp would only need to recruit them on the day when the wardec renewal comes up, and they can all quit the corp after the aggressor drops the wardec - remember that CCP is also talking about implementing a cooldown period on wars, so the aggressor would not be able to immediately re-wardec the defender.

The market alts would never be at risk, since they don't need to leave station to do what they do, and they would not actually need to do much of anything except join/quit the defender corp. There could even be a nominal fee paid, per alt, by the defender corp. Think of it as yet another way to generate passive income on your idle alts.

A hundred alts would raise the wardec renewal fee by an additional 50M ISK - which is what it costs currently to wardec an alliance. If it were possible to get a thousand alts on call to form the shield, then the aggressor would be looking at an additional 500M ISK to continue the war... ouch.

Hmm... I suppose, too, that the market alts could proactively be formed into a corp, and an alliance. Then, a defender corp would simply need to join the alliance to engage the shield. The shield alliance could charge a reasonable fee for the service, and the fee would be distributed to the members of the shield.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#830 - 2012-04-20 07:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dream Five
>>>>>>>>>
OK.. Here's an idea: let the players decide which one is right, dynamically.

Introduce some number of conquerable CONCORD war control towers in different places of the empire. These can be engaged faction warfare style. Then whoever controls the tower can flip the switch - wardecs allowed or not. Then if majority of towers controlled are set into allow or disallow mode, then either the wardecs will be allowed or not - either globally or per region or per faction space or maybe per constellation. I think maybe 3 towers per-constellation would create the most interesting dynamic. Existing wardecs would then expire, new wardecs would not be allowed while the towers are in control of the anti-war faction.

This is some juicy objective to fight for and there will be a lot of fighting.

Let the carebears fight the griefers for their right to control the war! Let the industrialists fund the mercenaries to fight for whether the war is allowed or not!
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#831 - 2012-04-20 07:33:29 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Yet another random idea:

High sec is home to a lot of market alts, which just sit in station and rarely undock. Many of these alts even belong to NPC corps (such as my forum alt) on a more-or-less permanent basis.

What if these alts were organized into a high sec wardec shield, on call to join a defender corp, when needed?

A defender corp would only need to recruit them on the day when the wardec renewal comes up, and they can all quit the corp after the aggressor drops the wardec - remember that CCP is also talking about implementing a cooldown period on wars, so the aggressor would not be able to immediately re-wardec the defender.

The market alts would never be at risk, since they don't need to leave station to do what they do, and they would not actually need to do much of anything except join/quit the defender corp. There could even be a nominal fee paid, per alt, by the defender corp. Think of it as yet another way to generate passive income on your idle alts.

A hundred alts would raise the wardec renewal fee by an additional 50M ISK - which is what it costs currently to wardec an alliance. If it were possible to get a thousand alts on call to form the shield, then the aggressor would be looking at an additional 500M ISK to continue the war... ouch.

Hmm... I suppose, too, that the market alts could proactively be formed into a corp, and an alliance. Then, a defender corp would simply need to join the alliance to engage the shield. The shield alliance could charge a reasonable fee for the service, and the fee would be distributed to the members of the shield.


Yes. Also add cyno alts and just dead passive toons.
Galaxy M83
Doomheim
#832 - 2012-04-20 08:24:20 UTC
Dream Five wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
OK.. Here's an idea: let the players decide which one is right, dynamically.

Introduce some number of conquerable CONCORD war control towers in different places of the empire. These can be engaged faction warfare style. Then whoever controls the tower can flip the switch - wardecs allowed or not. Then if majority of towers controlled are set into allow or disallow mode, then either the wardecs will be allowed or not - either globally or per region or per faction space or maybe per constellation. I think maybe 3 towers per-constellation would create the most interesting dynamic. Existing wardecs would then expire, new wardecs would not be allowed while the towers are in control of the anti-war faction.

This is some juicy objective to fight for and there will be a lot of fighting.

Let the carebears fight the griefers for their right to control the war! Let the industrialists fund the mercenaries to fight for whether the war is allowed or not!


Sounds cool.. could also be used to fight for control of other rules like u say and even dethrone Jita :)
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#833 - 2012-04-20 12:19:20 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
Ill quote something here for other thread:

Liam Mirren wrote:
Avila Cracko wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:


Actually, the proposed ideas on fanfest (and round table issues afterwards) really show that the guys working on it should go do something else, like revamping mining or something. I know this all sounds harsh but I have zero respect for people who decide to implement changes to things they have no clue on.


And you know whats the funnest part???
CCP put one whole DEV team on WAR decs.
And whole team wants to solve all problems with tweeks in few simple formulas.
Sorry, but I don't see where is DEV time spent here.

When i heard that CCP put DEV team on this problem i thought there will be whole revamp of War Decs and we are getting nothing.

And you saw FanFest presentation?
DEV that hold that part of presentations didnt even wanted to be there
and all people that asked him questions on the end were concerned and got the same kind of "no answer".
And you could clearly see that DEV had no idea what he is talking about.

When person who do the job is not into it, you get nothing.

Sorry but i don't see that any real work is getting done here.


Quite. Mind you, I'm not "attacking" the guy in question, it's nothing personal. I'm raging against the decision to put someone in charge of stuff he has no affinity with, something so important and fundamental in EVE as wars.


I am not attacking anybody.
I am just disappointed with everything thats (not) happening.


They will try to minimize dev time investment as much as possible, that's natural.

There's a fine line between that and avoiding putting the work into the issue :)
Cal Becka
Axiom Sprocket
#834 - 2012-04-20 13:39:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Cal Becka
ok first. i haven't read the whole thread so i apologise if this has been covered.

With regards to the allie system. most arguments against unlimited allies, is that a corp/alliance will allie with as many corps as they can to get as many wartargets as they can assentialy for free.

My argument against that is this:
why would I (the defender) allie with the above corp/alliance?
because if they are wardec'd (which they probably will be because then the attacker gets all of the corps they are allied with as well.) then i get a war i haven't bargained for.

thats Assuming the Allie link runs both ways? (which i don't think i've seen confirmed or denied.)
thats not to say the if corp A is allies with corp B and C,
that corp C becomes a target if B is dec'd
only that both B and C will become targets if A is wardec'd.
Sigras
Conglomo
#835 - 2012-04-20 15:51:19 UTC
I posted this in another thread, and im sorry if this has come up already, but I would rather have an additional cost for the difference in size between the two entities, so it works both ways. This way large alliances can dec large alliances, but theyre effectively immune to decs from smaller alt corps who are rarely active and just want to cause large groups a headache

Also you'll never have a large group dec a small group because of the cost involved.

The formula would be something like

total_cost = (Bigger_Corp_Size - Smaller_Corp_Size)^2 * 1,000,000 / (Smaller_Corp_Size * 0.25) + 100,000,00

that way a 100 man corp attacking a 20 man corp would have to pay 2.1 billion but a 3000 man alliance attacking a 3500 man alliance would only pay 433 million

This would also encourage alliances/corps to drop inactive members or alts because they can now be cheaply decced by a corporation/alliance that may have that many active members and thus expose themselves to additional danger from a larger entity.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#836 - 2012-04-20 16:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Quote:
Q: Neutral parties in a fight?
A: This is part of crime watch and not handled specifically by the war system. RRing someone in a legal war fight in hi sec adds a Suspect flag. This won't solve RRing as such, so maybe something more needs to be done, but this is what we're planning for Inferno.


This actually falls in line with another issue of the war system.

A player involved in the war can join a fleet of players not involved in the war and once that player involved in the war is engaged, then the rest of the fleet is free to engage the other party.
This to me is basically cheating, so my suggestion to fix this is

If a player engages in warfare while not being a member of one of the involved parties, then that player becomes a criminal and is CONCORDED.

This would apply to logistics, fleet boost, and fleeted combatants that aren't part of one of the warring parties.

The wars are paid for, but only for the 2 parties(corps/alliances), therefore, anyone not in one of these parties engaging in that war is a criminal. They shouldn't ever receive an aggression counter from war targets when they are not active members of either party.

Also with the Merc system.
CCP had announced at fanfest that the mercs would be paid up front and it was up to the players to trust them. This is a bit unfair to force the players hands into trust. The trust should go both ways and not just on the recruiters behalf.
My suggestion
The recruiter pays half up front and half when the war or duration of the arangement is over. This means, the recruiter has to trust that the mercs are going to do their job, but the mercs have to trust that the threat they pose is enough to make the recruiter pay the other half at the end of the duration.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#837 - 2012-04-20 16:41:53 UTC
Just thought of something that might be nice

Unconditional Surrender

Basically, this is another isk sink, but in a way that allows those corps that don't like wars at all to get out of them.

So, the costs. You pay 100mil, plus 10 mil per head in your corp in order to unconditionally surrender. That money is given to Concord(as an isk sink), and you are automatically protected from another war dec.

Now, this has ups and downs.

Up Side
You're able to get out of a war and are protected from another war.

Down Side
The larger your corp/alliance is, the more expensive it is the get out of the war.
Concord only protects you from another wardec for 1 week.

So, a 50 man corp would have to pay 600 mil in order to get out of the war, and would be protected from another war for 1 week.

While some may feel that this is crap, I feel that it's allowing non-combat corps to have an option, but must pay to do so, and only last a short period of time.

100 mil and 10 mil per person in the corp/alliance is a high enough that it makes the players think whether they should pay, or just fight, but at the same time, is still an attainable number.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#838 - 2012-04-20 21:43:36 UTC
That's not actually an unconditional surrender though. The point of an unconditional surrender is that you surrender to your aggressor with no conditions (I know it might be hard for you to understand).

Also non-combat corps already have an option, they can join an alliance or they can hire mercs. There should under no circumstances be any means for a corporation to defend themselves from violence without actual defense being involved.

You should defend yourself by defending yourself or by having other players defend you, not by pressing a magic button that makes the bad men go away.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#839 - 2012-04-20 23:51:21 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
That's not actually an unconditional surrender though. The point of an unconditional surrender is that you surrender to your aggressor with no conditions (I know it might be hard for you to understand).

Also non-combat corps already have an option, they can join an alliance or they can hire mercs. There should under no circumstances be any means for a corporation to defend themselves from violence without actual defense being involved.

You should defend yourself by defending yourself or by having other players defend you, not by pressing a magic button that makes the bad men go away.



So they can't hae a button to make the bad men go away when the bad men have a button to allow them to practically kill anyone?
Sounds a bit like a double standard.
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#840 - 2012-04-20 23:56:37 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I posted this in another thread, and im sorry if this has come up already, but I would rather have an additional cost for the difference in size between the two entities, so it works both ways. This way large alliances can dec large alliances, but theyre effectively immune to decs from smaller alt corps who are rarely active and just want to cause large groups a headache

Also you'll never have a large group dec a small group because of the cost involved.

The formula would be something like

total_cost = (Bigger_Corp_Size - Smaller_Corp_Size)^2 * 1,000,000 / (Smaller_Corp_Size * 0.25) + 100,000,00

that way a 100 man corp attacking a 20 man corp would have to pay 2.1 billion but a 3000 man alliance attacking a 3500 man alliance would only pay 433 million

This would also encourage alliances/corps to drop inactive members or alts because they can now be cheaply decced by a corporation/alliance that may have that many active members and thus expose themselves to additional danger from a larger entity.



Those small groups causing larger groups headaches are a vital part of eve. Nothing needs to be done to hinder them, they are a large part of the sandbox. If a 5 man corp wants to dec a 3000 man alliance, then more power to them - it shouldn't cost them 3 bil isk a week to do it.

If you are a large alliance and are decced by a small one, then deal with it. It's usually being done to hit logistics anyway and if your logistics are too stupid to know how to dodge a wardec then they don't deserve to live. There is no greater isk sink that a freighter full of goods, half of which is sent off into the void.

CCP has an interest in making 0.0 logistics more difficult, and privateer alliances and corp play a vital part of that process.