EVE Search - Sticky:New dev blog: Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New dev blog: Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 40 post(s)

CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1392	Posted - 2012.06.13 16:18:00 - [1] - Quote AMirrorDarkly wrote: Wow, this shifts War decs firmly back to the advantage of the aggressor, I expected some sort of rebalance in light of what's happend with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies).


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1392	Posted - 2012.06.13 16:19:00 - [2] - Quote Orakkus wrote: I highly disagree with this: Quote: There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this: GÇóAlly #1 GÇô Free! GÇóAlly #2 GÇô 10 million GÇóAlly #3 GÇô 20 million GÇóAlly #4 GÇô 40 million GÇóAlly #5 GÇô 80 million GÇóand so onGÇª I think this point alone discourages smaller alliances and corporations from defending against large, generally better funded, alliances. And to be honest, this sounds too much like the Mittani's influence because of what happened between Goons and Star Fraction. Smaller alliances should have the ability to contract as many allies as they need.. without financial cost. Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv.


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1392	Posted - 2012.06.13 16:31:00 - [3] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: E man Industries wrote: 2 weeks is to short. By the time a contract is set up it's almost over.... 4 weeks would be better. Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them? Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do. Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved. CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When? Nope, that change currently isn't on the table.


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1396	Posted - 2012.06.13 17:25:00 - [4] - Quote Jade Constantine wrote: Kelduum Revaan wrote: Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking... Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1... Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted. I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online. It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far. This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game. Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year. Maybe this will go the same way in six months. Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec. Business as usual. I completely agree with your take on this situation: 1. The largest alliances haven't asked for this change. I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it has yet to reach me. From reading the thread on Sisi they seem to be making it abundantly clear that they don't care about this feature. 2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1396	Posted - 2012.06.13 17:28:00 - [5] - Quote 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. We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion.


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1396	Posted - 2012.06.13 17:31:00 - [6] - Quote Darius III wrote: CCP SoniClover wrote: First! This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit. As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch. Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that :Hfive:


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1398	Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 - [7] - Quote Jade Constantine wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion. So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave? Alekseyev Karrde wrote: But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way. Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high. I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against. I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things. I'm saying you're fabricating things because you're incorrectly making assumptions about meetings you have no information about. Unless you have read rights to the CSM forum you can't accurately gauge our communication with the CSM. Secondly a CSM member just posted on this page saying he supported the changes. The function of the CSM has never been to dictate changes. If that was the case, we'd be building features to suit individual people, which isn't going to happen. The CSM meetings aren't where features are designed either, so if we talk about things at meetings that doesn't lock us into a certain development path. We had a chat with the CSM, we agreed on that a change was needed but at the end of the day we didn't chose the patch Alekseyev wanted because I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else. Your assumption that we "don't listen" is entirely incorrect, and either grounded in the fact that you have no idea what goes on between us and the CSM at closed door or because you selectively choose to believe that "listen" means "do what they tell us", which it certainly doesn't. This topic has been discussed at length with the CSM on their forum, regardless of of what your theory about the subject is. Anyway, I understand you disagree with the feature and that's fine, but after reviewing the feedback this is the direction that I at the end of the day chose.


CCP Soundwave C C P C C P Alliance 1398	Posted - 2012.06.13 17:50:00 - [8] - Quote 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.................