These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Information Center » EVE Information Portal » New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page45678Next pageLast page

New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Dirk Space

Solar Dragons

Likes received: 33

#101 - 2012-03-29 16:41:58 UTC

Yiole Gionglao wrote:

Please, i have a question!

If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation?

Thank you in advance! Smile

You can't, don't worry about it though, the bullies and griefers will get what they want, that's how eve works, remember.

Alx Warlord

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 574

#102 - 2012-03-29 16:42:04 UTC | Edited by: Alx Warlord

CCP it would be nice to have multiple levels of Wardecs. And to upgrade them it would need time and isk.

LVL 1: (Imediate activation) Valid in Nullsec and WH-Space, this would basically be used to track the conflicts and have a nicein game killborad for it.

LVL 2: (+24H to upgrade to it) Valid in low-sec also, a little more expensive then the lvl1.

LVL3: (+42H to upgrade to it) Valid in Hi-Sec

Also the war dec mechanism that is being proposed don't sounds that good... =/ it protects big corps... and make the small ones more vulnerable... Although the kill-board and tracking the kill history would be Awesome!!!

I think that there should be a POT (war wallet) that would be delivered to the winners corp wallet.( Like in poker)

I think that it would be nice if both sides could call reinforcements for the war, and make it possible for corps to exit war if all parties accept, the exiting corp would offer this ISK to the POT and if every other vote yes, they left.

Also it would be good if the war could be reversed, allowing the one that is on the "Defensive" to pay to keep the war... So, make a war payment poll where anyone interested in the war could pay: If both pay, the ISK would be put in the "POT" to be given to the winner, if only 1 pays, the isk goes to concord. ( This will make red and blue life easier and more interesting and competitive )

The Upkeep should be based on the number of characters in both corporations. this would be more fair.

Also there should be an option to refuse war. This would make the Upkeep rize a % each week. and if the war ends and the atacker war dec again... the cost is resummed. If the deffender war dek then, the cost is resset.

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system

Derkata

Likes received: 21

#103 - 2012-03-29 16:43:24 UTC | Edited by: Derkata

I can only assume CCP SoniClover is trolling with that quick Q&A.

Q: Price of war?
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.

Thank god the attacked corp can't be gamed.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

An actual problem to address, hmm maybe later.

Q: Defender taking over wars?
A: We've contemplated similar things, but ended up deciding it would complicate the system too much. If the defender is really keen on getting back at the aggressor, he can simply war dec him.

Once again, a good idea that CCP just doesn't want to take time to apply. Just like the titan "fix" and, well almost everything else.

Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities?
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.

Gotta protect null blocs and eve Uni. I only play a few times a month but have kept my account running because I love following the changes and seeing what this game can become. This war dec "rework" doesn't fix any of the issues other than indy players getting away from griefers. How dare they.

Syri Taneka

NOVA-CAINE

Likes received: 149

#104 - 2012-03-29 16:43:27 UTC

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.

What I'd like to see is something along these lines: If someone not part of an ongoing war RRs someone who is in a war, they must pay some nominal amount of isk and join the war for some amount of time (IE 24 hours).

Some thought may have to be put into that "punishment" to avoid temp joins done on purpose... so perhaps just become a valid target for a period of time?

Nekopyat

Nee-Co

Likes received: 59

#105 - 2012-03-29 16:47:00 UTC

Derkata wrote:

[
But, CCP wants to force PVE players into PVP and then wonders why their game doesn't attract new players Ugh

CCP would probably do better if they found a way to actually reward PvE players rather then saying 'PvP is its own reward, you must do it!'. They keep coming up with all sorts of carrots for PvP players and sticks for PvE ones and wonder why the PvE players continue to resist.... in the end the PvP is not fun for them and thus if you want to force them to participate they need to be compensated for being taken away from parts of the game they do enjoy.

At least when it comes to all the 'risk vs reward' tradeoffs in the game it can be claimed that you get something for the additional risk.. but in the case of wardecs the reward IS the risk, so they have no incentive to participate and no amount of additional complexity or ways of escaping will change this basic problem.

Athena Momaki

Likes received: 28

#106 - 2012-03-29 16:47:27 UTC

CCP SoniClover wrote:

Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.

Q: Take fights further from stations?
A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno.

Not sure if that was to my Question.

Athena Momaki wrote:

Can we add one more thing?

Make it so the aggressive corp cannot dock when under fire. I am tiered of the aggressors decking the corp i am in just to play docking games, or undock and then redock when they find out that they made a mistake on how much force we can bring. They made the war. They should have to surrender or fight, and not be able to hide.Twisted

(yes this player is in an NPC corp. I am not that crazy to put my corp out there like that.)Blink

If this was to the question can CCP work something out down the line, so the docking games can end for the aggressor. To force them to give up and surrender, or to fight.

and yes this is not my main.

Adunh Slavy

Likes received: 1,639

#107 - 2012-03-29 16:48:00 UTC

The Blog wrote:

Yay!

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

Adunh Slavy

Likes received: 1,639

#108 - 2012-03-29 16:52:47 UTC

CCP SoniClover wrote:

Q: Everything on market now?
A: More or less. Basically, everything that exists, is published and has a meta level is on the market now.

Not exactly war related ... so all the faction/officer modules for which we are subjected to endless contract spam are now on the market as well?

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

Anvil44

Avedis Corporation

The Vanguard Syndicate

Likes received: 120

#109 - 2012-03-29 16:53:15 UTC

I think expanding Merc corps would be a pretty good idea. To register a merc corp, they would have to pay a fee based on size perhaps. This fee/bond could then be used as payout to a corp that hires the mercs if the mercs turn on them after being hired/entering a contract. This could be reflected in merc corp history, and would add to their famous/infamous reputation.

Not sure how good an idea this would be but it would take being a merc corp for hire to a whole new level.

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.

Miss Convenient

Caldari Provisions

Caldari State

Likes received: 6

#110 - 2012-03-29 16:54:31 UTC

HELLO?

This is not a re-vamp or re-design. The additions are welcome, but it's quite obvious that there's more time needed to develop this mechanic. It does absolutely nothing new or interesting that cannot be achieved by old mechanics and out of game tools, while keeping most of the bad bits.

It's great that you want to fix something that's obviously broken. This is not fixing it.

Every criticism of the presented new system has been dismissed with a blatant display of ignorance from the presenting CCP Dev. If you can't argue well for your design, there's probably something wrong with it.

I thought this method of game-design was over at CCP?

If Inferno hinges on a war-theme and this is the hinge, oh well, BF3 is lots of fun...

Indahmawar Fazmarai

Likes received: 5,954

#111 - 2012-03-29 16:55:20 UTC

Yiole Gionglao wrote:

CCP SoniClover wrote:

(stuff)

Good luck getting an answer you LIKE to that concern... Twisted

Dirk Culliford

Zero G Universal Enterprises

Likes received: 27

#112 - 2012-03-29 16:58:42 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.

Quoting for the greatest justice that justicey justice people can provide. Ccp hire this (wo)man! (or at least adopt the idea)

You start the war, accept the risk and consequences of losing, losing badly

Nekopyat

Nee-Co

Likes received: 59

#113 - 2012-03-29 16:59:20 UTC | Edited by: Nekopyat

Quote:

Well, that is kinda what CCP is going for. They like the blackmail mechanic and usually just say that you should hire a merc corp (because apparently casual indy players are rolling in ISK... *looks sadly at wallet*) or 'go out and fight'.

Micheal Dietrich

Kings Gambit Black

Likes received: 2,444

#114 - 2012-03-29 17:00:44 UTC

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Derkata wrote:

Micheal Dietrich wrote:

I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours.

If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.

This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec.

That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec?

Derkata - There is a way for you to declare 'war' on a merc corp, which is by hiring another merc corp to go after them. True that this wouldn't force them to mine, but then a war of the miners sounds like one of those silly game shows like survivor or something. But back to the point, hiring armed forces of your own can put a serious dent in the aggressors plans, and could force them to quit the war against you quickly. Luckily for the both of you, the ability to hire such mercs will become much easier in the coming installment.

There is no one answer to your other question. People fight in high sec for various reasons. Perhaps because they enjoy the cap on ships. Maybe they enjoy small scale over large alliance duties. Maybe they just enjoy being near a trade hub. Or dare I say, some aren't equipped well enough to handle people who actually know pvp.

My group is usually hired to go after a target. What they do is of no concern, and I don't ask, I just put a track on them. If they run to low or null sec, I follow. If they hide in a wormhole, I'll find them. We don't discern between Mining barges or HAM Drakes.
When we aren't contracted by another entity we look for people who we feel are poorly running their corporation. If we feel we have sufficient evidence, we open up a Concorde approved investigation letting us to delve further into their corporate matters and allow us to write up a report to present to them on what they can do to improve their status as a corp and hopefully help prevent future transgressions against those looking for a target. We usually have more success with individual corp members than we do CEO's.

I hope this has helped answer some of your questions.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **

Lord Helghast

Center for Advanced Studies

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 119

#115 - 2012-03-29 17:00:55 UTC

Alx Warlord wrote:

I love the idea of this, with varying costs depending on the type of war, LVL1 - free or a static fee since it doesnt involve concord just tracking...

LVL 2 would be cheaper than level 3 because level 3 is heavily paying off the cops in highsec....

And upkeep should be a ratio based calculation between the aggressor and the agressed to be fair

ALSO I LIKE THE IDEA of the "war wallet"!

Add the abiliy for "mutual wars" to each side to agree to a "winners pot" so each side bets that they will win X amount, winnter takes all...

could go further that each corp, could also put in cash at the start of the war for the #1, #2, #3 killers that gets split up by X percent for each position as a corp-war-reward system, automated by the war dec tracking system...

but thats just me seems that all the logic is there already and would be sexy to have mechanics to automate it.

Lord Helghast

Center for Advanced Studies

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 119

#116 - 2012-03-29 17:02:12 UTC

Dirk Space wrote:

Yiole Gionglao wrote:

You can't, don't worry about it though, the bullies and griefers will get what they want, that's how eve works, remember.

seems logical, HIRE A MERC CORP TO PROTECT YOU

I mean honestly, there adding a system that allows you to litteral hire "body guards" and yet your still lost?


Lord Helghast Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation Likes received: 119	#117 - 2012-03-29 17:03:46 UTC Question: whats to stop 2x 1 man corps from wardeccing each other and inviting a 100000 man blob ally in? is the ally calc manually set? or is there a cost associated with it as well thats dynamic as well as the cost paid to the ally?

Kurai Okala

Okala Corp

Likes received: 31

#118 - 2012-03-29 17:04:00 UTC

It seems there was some concern that these changes might make it too hard for a high-sec corp to avoid wars and the only option for them is to join an NPC corp.

Have you considered setting up a system which would allow a player corp to choose war immunity in exchange for their taxes been treated as NPC corp taxes? In other words, their tax rates would match (or maybe be higher than) the NPC rates and their tax revenue would become an isk sink.

I'm thinking this would allow player corps to keep their individuality while still paying a price for their war immunity? Or maybe you want the loss of corp individuality to be part of the cost?

Axl Borlara

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 75

#119 - 2012-03-29 17:05:57 UTC

Harimata wrote:

My #1 complaint about low-sec is that it is impossible to use small ships due to station guns/gate guns and a full-fledged war dec will also affect high-sec activities. Why not make it really cheap to have low-sec war decs? This will allow use of all ships without GCC in low-sec, while keeping high-sec activities safe

Impossible to use small ships in low-sec?
Care to explain that?

You might also want to look a faction warfare. Although that is supposedly changing too.

Quote:

while keeping high-sec activities safe

Hi-sec is NOT safe and should not be safe.
The difference is that there are consequences for the aggressor (eg Concord, security status).

Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 50
Besbin Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic Likes received: 50	#120 - 2012-03-29 17:06:09 UTC 2 Cosmetic suggestion: Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup. It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report".