These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Loridia Jade
Ghost Operations Tactical Unit
#1081 - 2012-06-05 23:25:52 UTC
Isabella Rascario wrote:
I think the war dec system is flawed too and too easily makes griefers front and center to what CCP seems to want to promote.

Good luck having a non-combat group of people in a corp. Where are the rules of engagement? One would have thought that non-combatants should be shielded by the same idea of laws that exist in the real world of not shooting civilians.

There's a few ideas I've thought of regarding this:

1) War decs only valid in 0.7 and below, that means that POSes can be attacked and as such give a meaning to a war in high-sec. In 0.8 and above, normal CONCORD response for hostile acts.

or

2) A player in a corp being wardecced can declare as non-combatant and thus is shielded from attacks. If that player attacks another in high-sec, they get concorded. Likewise if an attacker attacks a non-combatant player they get concorded too. If you make that choice you stick with it - no hopping between combatant/non-combatant status.

or

3) Corps opt-in or opt-out of war-decs. If they are 'opted out' they cannot declare war on anyone else, neither can they be war-decced themselves.

I prefer the idea of #2, having it be players that make the choice whether to participate in the war their corp is in. Either you have corp mates that want to fight or they'll just log off and play something else. Playing EVE isn't something anyone is FORCED to do, and you cannot force anyone to do something they don't want. If you try and make people fight or feel that there is no chance for them to do what they WANT to do with the game time THEY PAID FOR then they will just leave and do something else. As much as EVE players like to think, this game isn't the be-all and end-all of activities. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better off everyone will be.

I'd really like to believe that EVE isn't 'a game for assholes, written by assholes' but that it really can be something people can ALL enjoy.


That totally reminds me of when I played My Little Pony Online for a couple of weeks. At first I liked frolicking through the fields, riding rainbows and having casual conversation with everyone, but then after a little while I found that I wanted my very Own fields and Rainbows... Something special all to myself or to share with just my friends. I was a little upset that there was no way to have my very own. I couldn't even buck or kick anyone off of what I felt was mine. I wrote on their forum demanding a solution to this and I was APPALLED that they claimed it was a kids game to promote cheer, friendship, and sharing. I explained vehemently that for a game called "MY little pony" that I really couldn't play it MY Way! It was truly obsurd that they didn't redesign the game to make it truly enjoyable for me and my friends. I was totally put off, cause I felt like they didn't care... I felt like I just didn't belong in Ponyland. I quit, but I sure miss being a Colorful little Pony. Ya know what I mean?Roll. It's ok though, Eve is more my speed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Show with the Hand, Deliver with the Mouth, Steal with the Eyes; Tempt fate not, for therein lay a dark surprise.

Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1082 - 2012-06-06 01:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
Karl Hobb wrote:

If there is no risk, you should get no reward.



I call bullshit on this ... suicide gankers have no risk, yet get plenty of almost guaranteed rewards.

Same goes for most wardeccers.

The risk vs. reward mantra is blatantly broken and has nothing to do with EVE.
Isabella Rascario
Delphinian Enterprises
#1083 - 2012-06-06 01:56:58 UTC
Loridia Jade wrote:
Isabella Rascario wrote:

I'd really like to believe that EVE isn't 'a game for assholes, written by assholes' but that it really can be something people can ALL enjoy.


That totally reminds me of when I played My Little Pony Online for a couple of weeks. At first I liked frolicking through the fields, riding rainbows and having casual conversation with everyone, but then after a little while I found that I wanted my very Own fields and Rainbows... Something special all to myself or to share with just my friends. I was a little upset that there was no way to have my very own. I couldn't even buck or kick anyone off of what I felt was mine. I wrote on their forum demanding a solution to this and I was APPALLED that they claimed it was a kids game to promote cheer, friendship, and sharing. I explained vehemently that for a game called "MY little pony" that I really couldn't play it MY Way! It was truly obsurd that they didn't redesign the game to make it truly enjoyable for me and my friends. I was totally put off, cause I felt like they didn't care... I felt like I just didn't belong in Ponyland. I quit, but I sure miss being a Colorful little Pony. Ya know what I mean?Roll. It's ok though, Eve is more my speed.


LOL.. The funny thing is you probably think you would 'hurt my feelings' with your post but you only went and proved my point about it being a game for assholes if even any DISCUSSION about changing things yields the sort of snark-laden reply you gave.

“I have never thought, for my part, that man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Loridia Jade
Ghost Operations Tactical Unit
#1084 - 2012-06-06 14:51:14 UTC
Isabella Rascario wrote:
Loridia Jade wrote:
Isabella Rascario wrote:

I'd really like to believe that EVE isn't 'a game for assholes, written by assholes' but that it really can be something people can ALL enjoy.


That totally reminds me of when I played My Little Pony Online for a couple of weeks. At first I liked frolicking through the fields, riding rainbows and having casual conversation with everyone, but then after a little while I found that I wanted my very Own fields and Rainbows... Something special all to myself or to share with just my friends. I was a little upset that there was no way to have my very own. I couldn't even buck or kick anyone off of what I felt was mine. I wrote on their forum demanding a solution to this and I was APPALLED that they claimed it was a kids game to promote cheer, friendship, and sharing. I explained vehemently that for a game called "MY little pony" that I really couldn't play it MY Way! It was truly obsurd that they didn't redesign the game to make it truly enjoyable for me and my friends. I was totally put off, cause I felt like they didn't care... I felt like I just didn't belong in Ponyland. I quit, but I sure miss being a Colorful little Pony. Ya know what I mean?Roll. It's ok though, Eve is more my speed.


LOL.. The funny thing is you probably think you would 'hurt my feelings' with your post but you only went and proved my point about it being a game for assholes if even any DISCUSSION about changing things yields the sort of snark-laden reply you gave.


Hmmm, oh yes, I did strike a nerve, didn't I Cool. People that find themselves with a shortfall or feel that the world is out to get them, always try to validate themselves; i.e. "everyone else is a jerk to make my life miserable", or "the game is broken & it's not fair." You declare both, which brings me to my simple point... No matter how you color it, you obviously don't belong in Eve, but that's ok, I'm sure you'll have an infinite number of mindless hours playing My Little Pony. Btw, the "Mantra" in Eve, as the above poster touched on, is actually "HTFU!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Show with the Hand, Deliver with the Mouth, Steal with the Eyes; Tempt fate not, for therein lay a dark surprise.

Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#1085 - 2012-06-06 17:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Argus Sorn
Loridia Jade wrote:
Isabella Rascario wrote:
Loridia Jade wrote:
Isabella Rascario wrote:

I'd really like to believe that EVE isn't 'a game for assholes, written by assholes' but that it really can be something people can ALL enjoy.


That totally reminds me of when I played My Little Pony Online for a couple of weeks. At first I liked frolicking through the fields, riding rainbows and having casual conversation with everyone, but then after a little while I found that I wanted my very Own fields and Rainbows... Something special all to myself or to share with just my friends. I was a little upset that there was no way to have my very own. I couldn't even buck or kick anyone off of what I felt was mine. I wrote on their forum demanding a solution to this and I was APPALLED that they claimed it was a kids game to promote cheer, friendship, and sharing. I explained vehemently that for a game called "MY little pony" that I really couldn't play it MY Way! It was truly obsurd that they didn't redesign the game to make it truly enjoyable for me and my friends. I was totally put off, cause I felt like they didn't care... I felt like I just didn't belong in Ponyland. I quit, but I sure miss being a Colorful little Pony. Ya know what I mean?Roll. It's ok though, Eve is more my speed.


LOL.. The funny thing is you probably think you would 'hurt my feelings' with your post but you only went and proved my point about it being a game for assholes if even any DISCUSSION about changing things yields the sort of snark-laden reply you gave.


Hmmm, oh yes, I did strike a nerve, didn't I Cool. People that find themselves with a shortfall or feel that the world is out to get them, always try to validate themselves; i.e. "everyone else is a jerk to make my life miserable", or "the game is broken & it's not fair." You declare both, which brings me to my simple point... No matter how you color it, you obviously don't belong in Eve, but that's ok, I'm sure you'll have an infinite number of mindless hours playing My Little Pony. Btw, the "Mantra" in Eve, as the above poster touched on, is actually "HTFU!"


Are you really going to troll people and tell them to "HTFU" with a 5 month old alt account? LOL.

And Isabella - wardecs have always been there. Corps survive them - there are lots of ways to do that now - in fact more than there were before. Large dec shield alliances will form, making it expensive to wardec those small corps and you can always look for allies.

Eve is a game with assholes in it - that's for sure. It's not a game "of assholes" however. That being said - war and combat is part of the game, and if anything while the last patch glorifies it a little bit - it actually supports the defenders a great deal.

Or you can come to 0.0 and know who your friends are and aren't and avoid all the "gray area".

:O)

Sorn
Loridia Jade
Ghost Operations Tactical Unit
#1086 - 2012-06-06 20:16:30 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:

Are you really going to troll people and tell them to "HTFU" with a 5 month old alt account? LOL.

Sorn


Check your math big boy, I've been playing since early 11. If you're going to try to smack, at least try to present an intelligent statement. I suppose you live a different philosophy in life? **** happens... In Eve and in RL... Does it not? So don't sugar coat it and pat him on the back saying "it's ok, you deserve better" when we're all in the same sandbox, and have the same resources available to us. I suppose if you lose your job you'd rather **** and moan and expect the Government to compensate you cause, "You have it so tough." instead of getting off your Ass and figuring out a way to be better than the next guy to win a new job. You Democratic Types disgust me with you Entitlement theories. HTFU, is dead on right! For Eve and RL. Arguement otherwise are for slouches and moochers and pretty much worthless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Show with the Hand, Deliver with the Mouth, Steal with the Eyes; Tempt fate not, for therein lay a dark surprise.

Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1087 - 2012-06-14 14:35:04 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
don't worry, at least you still have wow - EVE is a nonconsensual PVP game
hth


No its not. With infallible local and the option for neutral scouting one never has to die unless consent is given.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#1088 - 2012-06-14 14:53:08 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
don't worry, at least you still have wow - EVE is a nonconsensual PVP game
hth


No its not. With infallible local and the option for neutral scouting one never has to die unless consent is given.

basically you mean if enough isk/cash is thrown at the game to supply enough alt accounts to watch every gate. pay to win huh?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Ned Black
Driders
#1089 - 2012-06-15 05:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ned Black
So if I get the new rules right and by reading comments I get this picture

Large entities with lots of money can basicly wardec smaller entities for as long as they like and there is buggerall the smaller entity can do about it.

The large attacker is free to choose if and when to drop the wardec, since the wardec fees are miniscule to an alliance of that size they really can keep them going for as long as they like.

Small entities that dont have that much money is effectivly barred from wardeccing large entities due to wardec fees.

The small attacker quickly runs out of money and cant keep the war up no matter if they want to or not.

The small entity have to take all the people of the large entity into account when wardec fees are being payed... it does not matter if all or none of those targets ever enter highsec...

The new system where a small entity could bring in a bunch of allies have basicly been made obsolete with the new updates.

It is fair that a large entity can wardec a small entity forever... but its not fair when that small entity brings in a lot of friends to dog pile that large entity...

From what I read I kind of get the feeling that most of these changes gives the larger entities a premium while they basicly tell any smaller entities to bend over so that they can be raped propperly...

I guess "The Blob" wins... again...
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#1090 - 2012-06-15 10:47:49 UTC
Ned Black wrote:
So if I get the new rules right and by reading comments I get this picture

Large entities with lots of money can basicly wardec smaller entities for as long as they like and there is buggerall the smaller entity can do about it.

The large attacker is free to choose if and when to drop the wardec, since the wardec fees are miniscule to an alliance of that size they really can keep them going for as long as they like.

Small entities that dont have that much money is effectivly barred from wardeccing large entities due to wardec fees.

The small attacker quickly runs out of money and cant keep the war up no matter if they want to or not.

The small entity have to take all the people of the large entity into account when wardec fees are being payed... it does not matter if all or none of those targets ever enter highsec...

The new system where a small entity could bring in a bunch of allies have basicly been made obsolete with the new updates.

It is fair that a large entity can wardec a small entity forever... but its not fair when that small entity brings in a lot of friends to dog pile that large entity...

From what I read I kind of get the feeling that most of these changes gives the larger entities a premium while they basicly tell any smaller entities to bend over so that they can be raped propperly...

I guess "The Blob" wins... again...

Or smaller entities can 'surrender.' Everyone always forgets that part.
Frying Doom
#1091 - 2012-06-21 15:50:09 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Ned Black wrote:
So if I get the new rules right and by reading comments I get this picture

Large entities with lots of money can basicly wardec smaller entities for as long as they like and there is buggerall the smaller entity can do about it.

The large attacker is free to choose if and when to drop the wardec, since the wardec fees are miniscule to an alliance of that size they really can keep them going for as long as they like.

Small entities that dont have that much money is effectivly barred from wardeccing large entities due to wardec fees.

The small attacker quickly runs out of money and cant keep the war up no matter if they want to or not.

The small entity have to take all the people of the large entity into account when wardec fees are being payed... it does not matter if all or none of those targets ever enter highsec...

The new system where a small entity could bring in a bunch of allies have basicly been made obsolete with the new updates.

It is fair that a large entity can wardec a small entity forever... but its not fair when that small entity brings in a lot of friends to dog pile that large entity...

From what I read I kind of get the feeling that most of these changes gives the larger entities a premium while they basicly tell any smaller entities to bend over so that they can be raped propperly...

I guess "The Blob" wins... again...

Or smaller entities can 'surrender.' Everyone always forgets that part.

So the large entity has to accept the surrender conditions that the small entity can afford? I didn't know that.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#1092 - 2012-06-21 16:23:38 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Ned Black wrote:
So if I get the new rules right and by reading comments I get this picture

Large entities with lots of money can basicly wardec smaller entities for as long as they like and there is buggerall the smaller entity can do about it.

The large attacker is free to choose if and when to drop the wardec, since the wardec fees are miniscule to an alliance of that size they really can keep them going for as long as they like.

Small entities that dont have that much money is effectivly barred from wardeccing large entities due to wardec fees.

The small attacker quickly runs out of money and cant keep the war up no matter if they want to or not.

The small entity have to take all the people of the large entity into account when wardec fees are being payed... it does not matter if all or none of those targets ever enter highsec...

The new system where a small entity could bring in a bunch of allies have basicly been made obsolete with the new updates.

It is fair that a large entity can wardec a small entity forever... but its not fair when that small entity brings in a lot of friends to dog pile that large entity...

From what I read I kind of get the feeling that most of these changes gives the larger entities a premium while they basicly tell any smaller entities to bend over so that they can be raped propperly...

I guess "The Blob" wins... again...

Or smaller entities can 'surrender.' Everyone always forgets that part.


You guys also conveniently forgot that it was possible for the bigger entity to surrender to get out of the forever war defensive allied "dogpile" strategy in inferno 1.0 also.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Minnaroth
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1093 - 2012-07-26 07:36:18 UTC
I am in a small war dec corp that i just set up and I plan to war dec small corps with High Sec POS in order to clear them and make isk from the POS modules and contents there-of.

My view is that the 50mill war dec fee is far too high because it is unreasonable to expect a small high sec indy corp to pay that kind of isk in surrender, let alone any profit for the declaring corp.

An alternative solution that does not reduce fee would be to have a "refund war dec fee" tick box in the surrender offer - this doesn't cost the defender anything but allows them to maker a more reasonable offer.

Potentially this tick box could only be available in the first 24 hours of the war dec in order to encourage fast surrender when the odds are against you and prevent people war deccing themselves with alt corps. Even allowing a partial refund (2 mill per hour before war starts maybe)

What do you think?

I also think something needs to be done about people taking down POSes or removing contents in that 24 hour window before the war starts is a problem, but I can't think of a good solution right now. Maybe disallow anchoring / un-anchoring during that time unless the defender clicks a "start war now" button? Doesn't prevent people removing all their stuff though. Maybe POSes could be instantly vulnerable and the 24 hours only applies to ships?

-Minna-
Minnaroth
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1094 - 2012-07-26 07:43:54 UTC
Tao Shaile wrote:

* The cost of war should be 10 times higher per week.


I like this idea - but reduce the cost of week 1 significantly and 10 times is maybe a little steep. Double each week would be reasonable.
Minnaroth
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1095 - 2012-07-26 08:58:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Minnaroth
Here's another idea.

Why not link the cost of surrender to the cost of maintaining a war and allow the attacker to choose the rate from a range of options. In the event of surrender, the defender pays the same price for a week of peace that the attacker paid for a week of war. The attacker is refunded their fee for that week and receives the payment from the defender. In the event that surrenders happens in week 1, the attacker then doubles their money, if week 2 they break even and from week 3 onward it starts to be a loss.

The advantages of this are that it takes into account size of corp in terms of available isk rather than number of players.

If for example the attacker's aim is to get a ransom, they must set the rate high enough to get the most they can but not too high or the defender will hire help, hide or fight rather than surrender and the isk will be lost. The greater the reward aimed for, the greater the risk because a higher war dec fee will be charged.

If the attacker's aim is war, they must set the rate high enough to discourage surrender, but must in turn pay the price in higher war dec fees for those higher surrender terms.

War rates could range from as low as a few million to as high as a billion or more for really large organisations.

This also has the advantage of making surrender terms transparent from the off.

EDIT: more advantages:

  • For mutual wars and wars against inactive corps (think offline POS removal) the attacker can set a fee of zero. This means that is these cases the war costs them nothing but it costs the defender nothing to surrender (if they want to and are online).
  • Huge alliances can be wardecced by tiny 1 man corps. Sure the alliance could easily surrender as the 1 man corp could only afford a small fee, but if lots and lots of small corps wardecced the alliance, it would all add up.


What do you think?

-Minna-